DUKE 

UNIVERSITY 


LAW  LIBRARY 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/trialsofscottdunOOscot 


- — - — 

An  Astounding  Record  of  Crime  and  its  Exposure. 


TRIALS  OF  SCOTT  AND  DUNLAP 


FOR 


Robbing  the  Northampton  National  Bank, 


AND 


Breaking  and  Entering  the  Cashier’s  House. 


Twelve  JDctys  in  Covert. 


YERBATIM  REPORTS  OF  THE  ADDRESSES  TO  THE  JURY,  BY 

Hon.  EDWARD  B.  GILLETT,  of  Westfield, 

Hon.  N.  A.  LEONARD,  of  Springfield,  and 
H.  H.  BOND,  Esq,  of  Northampton. 


Sketch  of  Bank  Burglaries  Planned  and  Executed  by  Edson,  Scott,  Dunlap, 
Connors,  and  others.— Nearly  $3,000,000  Stolen. 


Published  by  The  Gazette  Printing  Co.,  Northampton,  Mass. 


n^rhm's 


ALLAN  PINKEBTON,  Principal.  GEO.  H.  BANGS.  Gen.  Sup’t. 


Clarence  A.  Seward,  Counsel  and  Attorney,  29  Nassau  St.,  N.  Y. 


OFFICES. 

-Y.EIF  YOBK-Cti  Exchange  Place,  Bob’t  A.  Pinkerton,  Sup’t. 
CHICAGO— 191  &  193  Fifth  Avenue,  -  F.  Warner,  Sup’t. 
PHILADEBPHIA-45  S.  Third  St.,  Benj.  Franklin,  Sup’t. 

1^“  This  Ageucy  does  not  operate  tor  contingent  rewards  ;  is  inde¬ 
pendent  of  Government  or  Municipal  control,  and  prepared  to  do  all 
legitimate  Detective  business  entrusted  to  it  by  Express,  Railroad  or 
Insuranee.Companies,  and  Banks  or  Individuals. 


Trial  of 


The  Great  Bank  Burglary. 


Scott  and  Dunlap  for  Robbing  the  Northampton 
National  Bank. 

-  —  i  i  l  1^^  - 

On  the  night  of  Tuesday,  January  25,  1876,  seven  masked  men  entered,  simultane¬ 
ously,  the  house  of  John  Whittelsey,  cashier  of  the  Northampton  National  Bank,  cap¬ 
tured  the  seven  inmates  of  the  house,  bound  and  gagged  them,  and  by  force  and  torture 
obtained  from  the  cashier  the  combination  to  the  lock  on  the  door  of  the  bank  vault. 
They  also  took  from  the  cashier  his  gold  watch.  Then,  repairing  to  the  bank,  they 
entered  the  front  door  with  the  key  taken  from  the  cashier,  and  by  means  of  the  combi¬ 
nations  obtained  from  him,  opened  the  vault,  and  took  therefrom  money,  bonds,  certifi¬ 
cates,  and  other  securities  of  the  face  value  of  about  one  and  a  quarter  millions  of  dollars. 
Of  that  amount,  $111,250  was  the  property  of  the  bank,  and  the  balance  was  the  prop¬ 
erty  of  private  depositors.  The  burglars  locked  the  vault  door  when  they  left,  and 
wrenched  off  the  dial.  An  expert  locksmith  from  New  York  was  sent  for  to  unlock  the 
vault  door,  and  it  was  not  until  about  twenty  hours  after  the  robbery  that  the  fact  of  the 
robbery  was  definitely  known.  The  robbery  was  committed  between  the  hours  of  four 
and  six  o’clock  on  the  morning  of  the  26th,  and  the  robbers  left  town  immediately  there¬ 
after. 

On  February  14,  1877,  Robert  Scott  and  James  Dunlap,  well  known  to  the  police  force 
of  New  York  as  professional  bank  robbers,  were  arrested  in  Philadelphia,  as  the  ring¬ 
leaders  in  this  robbery,  and  on  the  17th  of  that  month  were  brought  to  Northampton  and 
committed  to  the  county  jail.  On  the  22d  and  23d  of  March,  they  were  examined  in  the 
Town  Hall,  before  Trial  Justice  H.  H.  Chilson,  and  bound  over  for  trial  in  the  Superior 
Court,  in  June,  under  bonds  of  $500,000  each.  Since  that  time,  they  have  remained  in 
jail  here,  under  a  constant  special  guard,  both  inside  and  outside  of  the  jail  premises. 

At  the  session  of  the  Grand  Jury,  June  12,  Scott  and  Dunlap  were  indicted  for  break¬ 
ing  and  entering  Cashier  Whittelsey’s  house  and  stealing  his  gold  watch,  and  also  for 
breaking  and  entering  the  bank,  and  stealing  money  and  securities  therefrom.  When  the 
case  was  called,  in  the  Superior  Court,  on  the  19th  of  June,  a  postponement  was  secured 
until  Monday,  July  9,  at  2  o’clock  P.  M.,  when  the  trial  was  commenced  before  Judge 
John  W.  Bacon,  of  Natick,  one  of  the  Justices  of  the  Superior  Court. 

To  both  of  the  indictments,  the  prisoners,  when  arraigned  on  June  15,  pleaded  not 
guilty.  The  government  first  took  up  the  indictment  charging  the  offence  of  breaking 
and  entering  the  bank  and  stealing  therefrom. 

The  Indictment. 

COMMONWEALTH  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

Hampshire  ss. — At  the  Superior  Court  begun  and  holden  at  Northampton  within  and  for  the  County  of 

Hampshire,  on  the  2d  Monday  of  June,  1877. 

The  Jurors  for  said  Commonwealth  on  their  oath  present,  that  Robert  Scott  and  James  Dunlap,  both  of 
the  State  of  New  York,  on  the  26th  day  of  January,  1876,  at  Northampton,  in  said  county  of  Hampshire 
and  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  aforesaid,  with  force  and  arms  a  certain  building  there  situate,  to 
wit,  the  banking-house  of  the  Northampton  National  Bank,  of  Northampton,  a  corporation  there  estab¬ 
lished  by  law,  in  the  night  time  of  said  day  did  break  and  enter  with  intent  then  and  there  the  goods, 
chattels  and  moneys  of  the  Northampton  National  Bank,  of  Northampton  aforesaid,  feloniously  to  steal, 
take  and  carry  away,  and  sundry  legal  tender  notes  issued  by  the  United  States  of  America  for  the  pay¬ 
ment  of  moneys,  together  amounting  to  six  thousand  dollars,  and  of  the  value  of  six  thousand  dollars  ; 
sundry  National  Bank  notes  for  the  payment  of  moneys,  together  amounting  to  six  thousand  dollars,  and 
of  the  value  of  six  thousand  dpllars  ;  seventy-five  mortgage  bonds  issued  by  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  Rail¬ 
road  Company,  each  for  the  payment  of  one  thousand  dollars,  and  each  of  the  value  of  one  thousand 
dollars  ;  five  bonds  issued  by  the  State  of  Missouri,  each  for  the  payment  of  one  thousand  dollars,  and 
each  of  the  value  of  one  thousand  dollars,  of  the  goods,  chattels  and  moneys  of  the  Northampton  National 
Bank  of  Northampton  aforesaid,  then  and  there  in  the  building  aforesaid  being  found,  feloniously  did 
steal,  take  and  carry  away,  against  the  peace  of  said  Commonwealth  and  contrary  to  the  form  of  the 
statute  in  such  case  made  and  provided. 

A  true  bill.  H.  C.  M.  Howe,  Foreman, 

S.  T.  Field,  District  Attorney. 

I 


L76865 


|  !  r 


2 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


Opening  of  the  Court. 

Promptly  on  time,  (2  o’clock  Monday  afternoon,)  the  Judge  arrived  and  the  court  was 
opened.  A  few  minutes  previous,  the  prisoners  were  brought  in.  Scott  was  handcuffed 
to  Deputy  Sheriff  Potter,  and  Dunlap  was  handcuffed  to  Deputy  Sheriff  Munyan.  The 
The  prisoners  looked  in  good  physical  condition.  Dunlap  especially  seems  to  have  im¬ 
proved  since  he  entered  upon  his  confinement.  The  High  Sheriff,  H.  A.  Longley,  and 
ten  deputies  were  in  attendance. 

Mr.  Gillett  Admitted  to  Assist  the  District  Attorney. 

District  Attorney  Field  asked  the  court  to  be  allowed  to  call  to  his  assistance  Edward 
B.  Gillett,  of  Westfield.  Mr.  S  wee tser,  counsel  for  the  defendants  objected.  The  Judge 
said  he  should  allow  Mr.  Gillett  to  assist  the  District  Attorney,  if  he  (Gillett)  should  say 
that  he  was  not  to  be  paid  by  any  outside  party.  Mr.  Gillett  stated  to  the  court  that  he 
had  not  been  retained  by  any  party  in  this  case  for  pay  ;  that  he  had  uo  expectation  of 
receiving  pay,  and  that  he  was  here  without  bias,  and  with  no  hope  of  compensation.  In 
reply  to  questions  by  Mr.  Sweetser,  Mr.  Gillett  said  he  was  first  invited  to  assist  in  this 
case  by  Charles  Delano,  of  Northampton,  by  letter,  who  wrote  at  the  request  of  the  Dist. 
Attorney,  and  afterward  by  Dist.  Attorney  Field,  in  a  letter.  Mr.  Sweetser  asked  if  he 
should  assist,  and  shouldn’t  receive  some  present  from  the  bank,  whether  he  would  not 
consider  it  a  pretty  mean  bank.  Mr.  Gillett  said  he  should  not  care  to  have  his  virtue 
tested  in  that  way,  and  would  answer  when  he  answered  the  letter  containing  the  offer. 

Mr.  Sweetser  inquired  if  Mr.  Gillett  was  to  be  allowed  to  make  the  final  argument,  and 
the  Judge  replied  that  he  could  do  whatever  the  District  Attorney  asked  him  to  do. 
While  the  management  and  responsible  control  of  the  case  was,  and  would  continue  to  be, 
in  the  hands  of  the  District  Attorney,  he  could  direct  what  part  of  the  duties  of  conducting 
the  case  Mr.  Gillett  should  perform.  Mr.  Sweetser  desired  to  put  in  an  exception  to  this 
ruling.  , 

•  ;  The  Counsel. 

The  prosecution,  being  a  duty  assumed  by  the  government,  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
District  Attorney,  who  was  the  only  prosecuting  officer  known  to  the  law  in  the  case. 
He  was  assisted  by  Mr.  Gillett,  who  made  the  final  argument.  Charles  Delano  and  Geo. 
M.  Stearns  sat  near  the  prosecuting  counsel,  to  make  such  suggestions  as  their  familiarity 
with  the  case  dictated.  The  defense  was  conducted  by  Theo.  H.  Sweetser,  of  Boston,  and 
D.  W.  &  H.  H.  Bond  of  this  town.  J.  M.  Moore,  of  New  York,  a  friend  of  Scott,  who 
has  been  working  up  the  case  in  New  York,  procuring  evidence  of  alibies,  &c.,  was 
also  present  to  aid  in  the  defense,  and  Detective  Pinkerton  of  N.  Y.  was  present  to  aid  the 
prosecution. 

The  Jury. 

About  an  hour  was  consumed  in  impanneling  the  jury.  The  government  challenged 
two  jurors  and  the  defense  two,  and  four  had  formed  an  opinion.  The  jury  having  been 
filled,  the  Judge  stated  that  he  should  allow  the  jury  to  appoint  their  own  foreman  when 
they  retired  to  consider  upon  their  verdict. 

The  Jury. — Calvin  Pease,  Belchertown  ;  A.  D.  Perry,  Worthington  ;  Norman  Preston, 
South  Hadley  ;  Horace  Rhoades,  Chesterfield  ;  E.  Sheldon  Searle,  Southampton  ;  Fred¬ 
erick  C.  Shaw,  Easthampton ;  Geo.  Tower,  Westhampton  ;  Thomas  W.  Stratton, 
Pelham  ;  Fred  D.  Billings,  Hatfield  ;  Alfred  H.  Cook,  Hadley  ;  Joshua  Crosby, 
Williamsburg  ;  Jesse  L.  Gale,  Easthampton. 

Opening  the  Case. 

District  Attorney  Field  opened  the  case  for  the  prosecution,  giving  a  summary  of  what 
the  government  expected  to  prove.  It  would  offer  testimony  to  prove  that  this  robbery 
was  committed,  and  that  it  was  committed  by  these  defendants.  It  would  offer  the 
testimony  of  a  man  who  was  one  of  the  parties  concerned  in  the  robbery  prior  to  its  com¬ 
mission.  It  proposed  to  show  that  this  witness  (Edson)  who  was  in  collusion  with 
these  defendants  to  rob  the  Northampton  Bank,  was  also  in  collusion  with  them  to  rob 
a  batik  in  Elmira,  N.  Y.  He  had  now  turned  state’s  evidence,  and  was  willing  to  testify 
to  what  he  knew,  and  having  been  with  these  defendants,  aiding  and  abetting  them,  he 
knew  all  about  their  operations.  The  law  wisely  availed  itself  of  the  evidence  of  one 
guilty  party  to  convict  other  guilty  ones. 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


3 


The  Evidence. 

rhe  first  witness  called  was  Engineer  E.  C.  Davis,  of  Northampton,  who  exhibited  a 
pi  m  of  Cashier  Whittelsey’s  house  on  Elm  street,  made  by  him.  The  house  is  distant 
from  the  bank  230-2-  rods,  or  about  two-thirds  of  a  mile. 

The  next  witness  was  John  Whittelsey,  Cashier  of  the  Northampton  Bank,  who  told 
the  story  of  the  visit  of  the  robbers  to  his  house  on  the  night  of  January  25,  1876. 
T  ey  entered  a  little  after  midnight  ;  saw  five  of  them,  all  wearing  masks  ;  one  went  to 
is  bedside  and  handcuffed  him;  another  to  the  other  side  of  the  bed  and  handcuffed  his 
wife.  These  two  men  he  identified  as  the  defendants  Scott  and  Dunlap.  All  the  inmates 
yj  nhe  house,  seven  in  number,  were  gathered  in  his  bedroom,  and  afterward  five  of  them 
ere  taken  into  other  rooms,  and  confined  by  lashing  them  to  the  bedsteads.  Mr.  Whittelsey 
vas  ordered  to  dress,  and  was  assisted  in  dressing  by  Scott,  and  soon  was  taken  into  the 
hall  adjoining  his  bedroom,  where  he  was  guarded  in  turn  by  both  Scott  and  Dunlap.  He  told 
them  it  was  no  use  for  them  to  attempt  to  get  into  the  bank,  as  it  was  secured  by  locks 
that  were  regarded  as  safe.  One  of  them  replied  they  knew  more  about  locks  than  he 
d.  They  said  they  were  going  to  take  him  to  the  bank  and  make  him  open  the  vault, 
a',  if  didn’t  do  it  they  would  “make  it  hot  for  him.”  He  was  then  taken  down  stairs, 
1  the  bank  keys  demanded.  One  of  the  robbers  took  a  key  from  his  own  pocket,  and 
ed  if  that  was  the  key  to  the  bank  door.  Whittelsey  told  them  it  was  ;  it  was  a  key 
ich  one  of  the  robbers  had  taken  from  his  pantaloons  pocket.  The  robber  tried  the 
in  the  lock  to  the  front  door  to  the  house  which  it  fitted.  He  then  accused  Whittel¬ 
sey  of  lying  to  him.  This  man  was  Scott.  Dunlap  asked  me  if  I  wanted  some  brandy — 
v  as  not  feeling  well.  Told  him  no  ;  I  was  better.  When  down  stairs,  Scott  was  behind 
beside  me,  and  Dunlap  near.  Scott  asked  if  I  was  not  at  Watch  Hill  two  years  before, 
he  Summer.  Told  him  I  was  there.  Said  he  was  there  also.  Asked  Dunlap  to  close 
1  kitchen  door.  He,  replied  it  was  well  enough  as  it  was.  Scott  called  for  the  com- 
ation  of  the  lock  on  the  vault.  I  gave  him  incorrect  figues.  He  took  them  down  and 
ed  for  the  combination  on  the  inner  door.  That  door  was  not  locked.  Scott  said  he 
not  believe  it.  Gave  him  figures.  He  asked  for  the  combination  on  the  inside  safe. 
Ten  I  hesitated,  he  struck  me  with  a  sharp  pointed  pencil.  Asked  me  to  repeat  the 
ires.  Tried  to  do  so,  but  couldn’t  remember  the  figures  I  had  given  him.  One  of 
;  m  said  it  was  no  use  for  me  to  lie  to  them,  and  began  pounding,  choking  and  punch¬ 
ing  me.  Dunlap  was  behind  me,  with  a  pistol,  and  Scott  before  me.  Scott  took  the 
nber.  I  watched  him  closely.  They  then  blindfolded  me.  They  were  in  the  house 
■  3e  hours.  Scott  assisted  me  to  dress — went  with  me  to  the  closet — asked  if  I  had  but 
o  vest.  Dunlap  sat  beside  me  at  least  two  hours.  They  were  there  from  soon  after  12 
1.  After  I  gave  them  the  correct  combination,  they  were  satisfied  they  had  obtained 
I  was  led  to  a  bedroom,  and  there  gagged  and  bound  to  the  bed.  Dunlap  said  bind 
is  man  close,  so  he  can’t  get  away.  That  was  about  4.  It  was  about  half  past  3  when 
went  down  stairs.  The  first  of  the  robbers  to  leave  the  house  were  Scott  and  Dunlap, 
ras  nearly  6  when  the  last  two  of  them  left.  I  was  released  between  6  and  7.  Seven 
;  sons  in  the  house — myself  and  wife,  Miss  Mattie  White  (now  Mrs.  Page,)  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
B.  Cutler,  Miss  Benton,  and  a  servant  girl.  Mrs.  Whittelsey  appealed  to  one  of  the 
bers  to  treat  her  husband  kindly.  Heard  her  ask  him  if  he  was  a  married  man,  to 
ch  he  replied  that  he  was.  Robber  said  he  would  treat  Mr.  Whittelsey  well,  if  he  would 
d  as  they  wanted  to  have  him.  Reached  the  bank  at  7 — found  the  vault  door  locked, 
■I  dial  broken  off.  A  man  came  from  New  York  to  unlock  the  vault.  Opened 
-  he  night  after  the  robbery.  There  were  stolen  of  the  bank’s  property,  812,000  in  bank 
■  is,  $6,000  in  government  notes,  five  $1,000  bonds  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  and  $75,000 
'  Ohio  and  Mississippi  R.  R.  bonds,  of  the  market  value  of  $850  per  $1,000  of  face  value, 
a  large  number  of  notes,  all  the  property  of  the  bank. 

At  this  point,  it  was  five  o’clock,  and  the  Judge  said  he  would  adjourn  the  court  until 
isday  morning,  at  9.  The  hours  of  meeting  during  the  trial  were  fixed  at  9  A.  M. 
2.15  P.  M.,  and  of  adjourning,  12.45  and  5.15  P.  M.  The  Judge  cautioned  the 
‘  7  against  allowing  any  person  to  talk  about  the  trial  in  their  presence,  or  to  them 
ut  it,  or  to  talk  among  themselves  about  it,  but  to  keep  themselves  free  from  bias,  so 
o  render  an  unbiased  and  impartial  verdict. 

A  about  4  o’clock,  a  heavy  shower  came  on,  and  the  noise  of  the  pouring  rain  almost 
wned  the  proceedings  in  the  court  room.  Darkness  prevailed  to  such  an  extent  that 
about  half  an  hour  it  was  necessary  to  light  the  gas. 


i 7R865 


4 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


Tuesday  Morning. 

Cashier  Whitt elsey,  resumed.  Aggregate  amount  taken  from  the  bank  estimated  at 
from  $1,000,000  to  $1,250,000.  Much  of  it  belonged  to  private  parties,  some  of  whom 
lost  their  all.  (Judge  ruled  that  all  the  government  was  obliged  to  prove  was  the  break¬ 
ing  and  entering  the  bank.)  I  had  one  of  the  three  keys  necessary  to  open  the  vault. 
These  keys  had  been  repaired  ;  in  fall  of  1875  were  filed.  District  Attorney  asked  who 
did  the  filing?  Sweetser  objected.  Judge  admitted  the  evidence.  In  fall  of  1875,  the 
keys  were  placed  in  hands  of  Wm.  D.  Edson  to  be  filed.  He  took  them  into  the  direct¬ 
ors’  room  and  filed  them.  Had  seen  Edson  before.  Found  three  of  the  doors  at  house 
broken  morning  after  robbery;  broken  with  sledge  hammers — found  five  such  hammers 
in  house.  Also  found  other  tools  in  house — gimlets,  &c.  My  watch  and  chain  were 
taken  by  Scott.  Scott  had  the  watch  down  stairs.  Asked  him  not  to  take  it  away ;  said 
he  would  not.  Watch  and  chain  valued  at  $250.  The  robbers  wore  masks.  The  two 
men  with  me  in  the  house  were  Scott  and  Dunlap.  “  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  they 
were  the  two  men  on  trial.”  Identify  them  by  their  voice,  size  and  shape.  Their  voices 
impressed  me  more  than  anything  else.  The  men  were  addressed  by  numbers.  Taller 
man  was  Scott ;  he  was  addressed  as  No.  1.  Judged  him  to  be  the  leader  of  the  gang. 
He  demanded  of  me  the  combination.  Can’t  say  who  gave  directions  to  the  others. 
Their  voices  impressed  me.  Suspected  they  might  be  arrested  some  time,  and  watched 
them  closely.  First  heard  them  speak  since  the  robbery,  February  27,  1877,  and  for 
three  days  in  succession.  Noticed  particularly  Scott’s  broad  shoulders. 

(Here  the  sledge  hammers  found  in  the  house  were  shown.  The  doors  bore  marks  of 
blows  with  such  hammers.  Other  articles  were  exhibited — dark  lanterns,  masks,  hooks, 
gimlets,  straps,  cords,  rubbers,  dusters.) 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Sweetser.  Scott  wore  a  long  linen  duster,  buttoned,  coming 
nearly  to  his  knees.  Wore  a  mask.  Could  not  see  his  faee.  He  wore  gloves.  Saw  his 
general  form.  Didn’t  notice  his  feet.  He  wore  rubbers.  Dunlap  wore  darker  clothes — 
wore  a  jacket  and  overalls.  Identified  the  mask  he  wore,  but  afterward  said  he  could  not 
positively  say  that  any  particular  man  wore  a  particular  one  of  these  articles.  Asked  if 
there  was  anything  extraordinary  about  Scott.  Said  he  was  broad-shouldered.  Here 
Sweetser  asked  Scott  to  stand  up,  and  he  did  so ;  also  Dunlap.  Is  there  anything  about 
these  men  extraordinary  ?  Witness  said  there  was  not,  but  he  could  readily  distinguish 
their  forms.  Was  excited  that  night — frightened — for  a  time,  but  afterward  got  over  it. 
Was  blindfolded  when  tied  to  the  bed.  Heard  the  doors  close.  Three  men  left  the  house 
at  about  4.  Did  not  6ee  them  when  they  left,  but  heard  their  steps.  Did  not  see  the 
men  on  trial  for  more  than  a  year.  First  saw  them  in  the  jail,  in  the  chapel.  Went  there 
to  see  the  prisoners.  Prior  to  going  to  the  jail  had  heard  something  of  the  evidence 
against  these  men.  Heard  it  from  the  officers  of  the  bank.  Had  not  heard  it  from  any 
detective.  Saw  Pinkerton  prior  to  going  to  the  jail — at  the  bank,  on  Sunday  morning. 
Am  in  the  habit  of  visiting  the  bank  Sunday  mornings.  No  talk  at  that  time  with 
regard  to  the  evidence  against  these  men.  Think  there  was  talk  at  that  time  of  my  going 
to  the  jail  to  see  these  men.  Heard  some  of  the  evidence  before  the  men  were  arrested. 
Heard  Scott  say  “yes”  at  the  jail — heard  Dunlap  say  the  same.  Did  not  tell  anybody  I 
recognized  their  voices.  Saw  them  the  next  day,  at  jail.  Mrs.  Whittelsey  and  Miss 
White  were  there  also.  Conversed  about  the  matter  between  these  two  days.  Officers  of 
the  bank  wanted  me  to  go  there.  Scott  asked  Pinkerton,  “  Have  you  seen  my  wife 
lately?”  and  said,  “I  would  like  what  money  was  found  on  me;”  also,  “If  I  had  my 
own  way.”  Heard  Dunlap  say,  “Will  you  see  about  mv  trunk  and  have  it  left  in  Mrs. 
Scott’s  care  ?”  He  asked,  “How  is  Connors’  case  getting  on  ?”  Heard  them  the  next 
day,  at  the  jail.  Told  officers  of  the  bank  thought  I  recognized  these  men. 

Scott  asked  what  he  was  to  have  for  breakfast — said  it  was  fish  day.  Said  it  was  useless 
to  canonize  saints,  as  some  of  them  died  of  small  pox.  Recognize  them  by  something 
besides  the  voice.  A  peculiar  shrug  of  the  shoulders.  Recognize  Scott  bv  his  shrug. 
Saw  it  at  the  jail,  where  he  exhibited  the  shrug  several  times.  Sweetser  asked,  for  the 
purpose  of  testing  witness’  mind  as  to  his  entire  fairness,  and  wanted  him  to  be  cautious 
in  answering  :  If  having  no  other  evidence  than  the  shrug  of  his  shoulders,  he  could 
swear  that  Scott  was  the  man  who  broke  into  witness’  house  ?  Witness  said  no.  Sweetser 
then  asked,  if  there  was  no  other  evidence  than  his  recognition  of  the  voice,  he  could 
swear  that  this  man  was  guilty  ?  Witness  said  yes,  and  repeated  it  two  or  three  times. 
Scott  here  stood  up  and,  at  Sweetser’s  request,  spoke  several  words.  Witness  said  he  sup- 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


5 


pressed  his  voice.  Mr.  Gillett  objected  to  Scott’s  talking  in  this  way  for  this  purpose. 
The  Judge  ruled  out  this  mode  of  examination.  Defense  -noted  the  exception.  Some 
hair  was  taken  out  of  one  of  the  masks  by  Mr.  Hussey,  and  has  been  carefully  kept  at 
the  bank. 

The  next  witness  was  E.  A.  Hall,  of  the  firm  of  Hall  &  Prew,  Springfield,  dealers  in 
clothing,  who  testified  that  a  pair  of  the  overalls  found  at  Whittelsey’s  house,  and  a  pair 
of  drawers  and  socks,  were  purchased  at  his  store  in  January,  1876,  a  day  or  two  prior  to 
the  robbery,  but  could  not  tell  who  bought  them.  His  cross-examination  postponed. 

James  0.  Mantor,  a  workman  at  the  hoe  factory,  early  in  January,  1876,  saw  on  two 
different  evenings,  two  men  standing  in  front  of  Cashier  Whittelsey’s  house,  talking  and 
making  gestures.  His  impression  was  that  Scott  was  one  of  those  men,  but  he  could  not 
say  positively. 

David  W.  Crafts  saw  on  Elm  street,  in  January,  1876,  a  man  who  inquired  of  him 
where  Whittelsey  lived.  Feel  satisfied  that  the  man  I  saw  was  Scott.  Prior  to  Jan.  25, 
1876,  saw  in  front  of  Maynard  &  Brooks’  store,  a  man  whom  he  called  the  same  man  he 
saw  on  Elm  street.  Defense  declined  to  cross-examine  the  witness. 

Deputy  Sheriff  Ansel  Wright  testified  to  finding  in  the  attic  of  the  Bridge  street  school- 
house,  a  day  previous  to  the  robbery,  a  lot  of  blankets,  cold  chicken  and  bread  in  a  mouldy 
state.  Blankets  were  rolled  up.  A  paper  bag  found  there  bore  the  printed  card  of  the 
N.  Y.  &  N.  H.  R.  R.  Stamford  Restaurant.  No  cross-examination. 

Deputy  Sheriff  Henry  M.  Potter  found  the  goods  in  the  school-house  attic.  Found 
there  a  copy  of  the  N.  Y.  Sun,  dated  Dec.  22,  1875. 

Deputy  Sheriff  Wright,  recalled,  testified  to  finding  a  flask  of  whiskey,  in  the  school- 
house  attic,  with  the  label  of  a  N.  Y.  firm  upon  it. 

Edson  on  the  Stand. 

At  a  quarter  before  twelve  o’clock,  Wm.  D.  Edson  was  called  and  sworn.  Residence  in 
New  York.  Resided  there  since  June,  1871.  Knew  Scott  and  Dunlap  since  September, 
1873.  My  business  was  making  sales  of  safes  for  Herring  &  Co.  During  fall  of  1873, 
met  Scott  and  Dunlap  four  or  five  times  previous  to  an  attempted  robbery.  Met  him  at 
Wm.  Connors’  room  on  Houston  street,  N.  Y.,  in  1873.  Sweetser  objected  to  witness 
testifying  as  to  a  robbery  in  the  fall  of  1873,  as  it  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  robbery  of 
the  Northampton  Bank.  District  Attorney  Field  claimed  it  as  competent,  as  part  of  a 
conspiracy,  resulting  in  the  robbery  of  this  bank.  Mr.  Gillett  claimed  that,  as  early  as 
1873,  a  compact  was  entered  into  between  Edson,  Connors,  Scott  and  Dunlap  for  robbing 
banks — that  each  of  the  conspirators  was  to  keep  on  the  watch  for  banks  that  could  be 
successfully  robbed,  and  that  when  such  a  bank  was  found,  it  was  to  be  attacked  ;  and 
that,  in  pursuance  of  that  conspiracy,  the  Northampton  bank  was  robbed.  Mr.  Sweetser 
objected,  because  whatever  was  said  about  robbing  banks  at  that  time  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  robbery  of  the  Northampton  bank.  The  court  allowed  the  evidence  of  conspir¬ 
acy  to  be  admitted,  and  counsel  for  defense  gave  notice  of  exception. 

Edson’s  Testimony. 

Edson  testified.  Met  Scott  in  Elmira,  N.  Y.,  in  September,  1875.  I  was  sitting  at 
the  dinner  table  on  Sunday,  when  a  stranger  came  to  me  after  all  the  guests  had  left,  and 
gave  me  a  letter  from  a  gentleman  whom  I  met  soon  afterwards  in  my  room,  and  who  in¬ 
troduced  himself  as  Robert  Scott.  He  was  registered  at  the  hotel  as  Fisher,  of  Illinois. 
He  gave  me  a  letter  from  one  Wm.  Connors.  There  was  an  arrangement  made  to  rob 
banks  by  Scott,  Dunlap  and  myself,  at  my  house  in  1873  ;  there  were  present  Scott, 
Dunlap  and  Connors.  Scott  asked  me  for  the  use  of  an  air  pump  which  I  had,  and  which 
was  used  for  the  sole  purpose  of  breaking  into  banks,  and  under  the  consideration  that  if 
their  arrangements  should  succeed  they  were  to  give  me  an  equal  share  in  any  bank  they 
robbed.  I  asked  them  if  such  arrangements  would  be  satisfactory  in  every  way,  and  they 
said  they  would.  In  pursuance  of  that  conversation,  I  gave  them  an  air  pump  with  that 
understanding.  I  did  not  see  anything  more  of  either  of  them  for,  probably,  in  the 
neighborhood  of  a  month.  Then  I  think  I  saw  Scott.  He  said  he  received  a  dispatch 
from  Dunlap  asking  him  to  make  preparations  to  go  west.  At  the  time  the  arrangement 
was  made  I  was  to  give  them  all  the  information  I  could.  I  had  an  opportunity  of  going 
where  they  could  not.  In  pursuance  of  this  agreement  I  was  to  receive  an  equal  division 
of  the  property. 


fi 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


I  came  to  Northampton  to  look  at  their  banks,  and  report  to  the  defendants  at  Wilkes- 
barre,  Pa.  I  came  in  August,  and  had  an  arrangement  in  case  I  was  detained.  I  could 
telegraph  them,  Care  of  R.  C.  Hill,  Wyoming  House,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.  I  came  to  North¬ 
ampton  on  some  work  for  the  First  National  Bank  and  was  detained,  and  telegraphed  to 
Wilkesbarre  that  I  would  meet  them  at  R.  L.  Edwards’,  241  West  Second  street,  N.  Y. 
After  I  finished  my  business  I  went  to  New  York  and  from  there  to  Wilkesbarre,  in  re¬ 
sponse  to  a  telegrem,  and  met  Scott  and  Dunlap.  I  gave  them  the  information  I  had 
about  the  dial,  and  explained  that  the  lock  had  a  weakness  in  it  which  rendered  it  unfit 
for  use.  I  had  with  me  a  set  of  keys  which  Mr.  Warriner  had  given  me.  I  gave  them 
to  Mr.  Scott  and  we  came  to  New  York  together.  I  also  gave  him  keys  to  a  sample  dial. 
He  made  a  set  of  duplicates  and  came  to  my  home,  and  returned  the  set  belonging  to  the 
bank.  Mr.  Dunlap  was  with  him  and  they  practiced  working  the  dial.  I  think  they 
then  agreed  to  go  to  Northampton  in  a  day  or  two,  which  they  did.  That  I  know.  They 
told  me  they  had  been  here,  and  found  where  Mr.  Whitteisey  lived,  what  part  of  the 
house,  how  many  were  in  his  family,  etc.  Afterwards  there  was  another  meeting,  when 
Connors  was  also  present  and  all  three  agreed  to  go,  and  afterwards  I  saw  them  again  and 
they  said  they  had  been  to  Northampton.  They  said  they  had  watched  Whittelsey’s 
movements  and  those  of  the  watchmen  of  the  bank  and  of  the  town,  and  saw  that  in  order 
to  be  successful  they  must  take  care  of  all  the  watchmen  in  the  town.  I  told  Scott  and 
Dunlap  that  Locke,  an  employe  of  Herring  &  Co.,  had  received  a  letter  from  the  bank 
in  Northampton,  stating  that  their  dials  were  worthless,  and  told  them  they  had  better 
drop  the  job.  At  their  request  I  went  on  to  Northampton  and  saw  Mr.  Edwards  and 
Mr.  Warriner,  and  found  that  the  dials  were  out  of  order,  and  went  back  and  told  them 
that  they  had  better  stop  work  then,  and  nothing  was  done  in  September  and  until 
November.  They  then  went  to  Northampton  and  examined  the  First  National  Bank, 
and  came  back  and  reported  they  had  found  obstructions  which  they  wanted  me  to  advise 
them  about.  (This  was  objected  to  by  Mr.  Sweetser  and  ruled  out  by  the  court  as  referr¬ 
ing  to  a  bank  other  than  the  one  robbed.) 

Afterwards  Scott,  Dunlap  and  Connors  wanted  me  to  come  on  and  see  about  the  North¬ 
ampton  National  Bank,  and  I  did,  on  the  22d  of  November,  and  obtained  impressions  of 
the  keys  at  the  bank,  and  told  them  I  had  obtained  the  impressions  and  gave  them  to  him, 
and  that  while  fixing  the  lock  on  the  second  door  of  the  safe,  I  suggested  to  Mr.  Warriner 
to  look  at  the  outer  door,  and  did  take  off  the  lock,  and  also  that  of  the  safe  door.  I 
suggested  that  it  wasn’t  safe  for  a  young  mau  to  know  the  combination,  and  it  was 
changed,  and  only  Mr.  Whitteisey  and  one  other  knew  it.  I  did  not  find  out  the  combi¬ 
nation  then,  but  did  afterwards,  and  gave  it  to  the  defendants.  I  knew  then  that  Mr. 
Y  hittelsey  had  it,  and  that  he  could  also  open  the  other  doors,  and  if  he  could  uot.  I 
could  do  a  little. 

Tuesday  Afternoon. 

I  gave  the  impressions  which  I  took  here  on  the  24th  of  November  to  Scott  and  Dun¬ 
lap  :  I  met  them  about  the  26th  ;  I  think  we  were  to  see  them  again  early  in  the  follow¬ 
ing  week  ;  I  think  they  came  to  my  house  then  and  showed  the  keys  Scott  had  made,  and 
tried  the  dials  of  the  locks.  I  had  five  or  six  interviews  with  them  until  January,  when 
the  robbery  occurred.  At  one  of  these  they  told  me  that  after  one  of  their  visits  here 
they  were  out  of  funds,  and  wanted  me  to  raise  some  money,  and  I  told  them  I  thought 
1  could,  provided  the  terms  were  satisfactory  for  its  use  ;  five  per  cent,  on  the  proceeds  of 
the  robbery  were  the  terms,  but  it  was  not  satisfactory.  Finally  I  got  $1000  for  them, 
the)  to  pay  $10,000  for  the  use  of  .it.  They  came  here  early  in  January,  I  think,  with 
the  purpose  of  perpetrating  the  robbery,  but  came  back  without  doing  it.  and  without 
money.  I  raised  them  $300  more  and  gave  it  to  them.  I  met  Dunlap  on  Broadway  the 
Sunday  night  preceding  the  robbery,  and  he  told  me  they  were  going  to  Northampton  the 
next  day.  I  lie  Monday  evening  following  the  26th  of  January,  I  saw  Dunlap  aud  Scott. 
1  was  here  at  the  opening  of  the  vault ;  I  was  sent  here  from  Bristol,  Conn.  I  was  in 
New  j  ork  on  the  morning  of  the  robbery.  Y  hen  I  got  here  1  found  another  Avorkman 
from  Herring  &  Co.’s  was  expected  here.  When  he  came  he  opened  the  vault  by  attach- 
ing  a  dial  to  the  6pindle,  which  was  exposed,  with  one  hundred  numbers,  and  of  course 
the  combination  would  be  struck  with  that  number  of  numbers.  When  the  safe  was 
opened,  Messrs.  Edwards  and  Warriner  ivere  present,  and  we  found  an  emptv  safe,  a  safe 
not  opened,  and  also  a  pocket-book  which  had  not  been  taken.  I  next  met  Scott  and 


TKIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


7 


Dunlap  in  response  to  a  personal  in  the  New  York  Herald  we  had  agreed  upon  if  they 
wanted  to  see  me  ;  we  met  on  the  Monday  following  the  robbery.  (Copy  of  Herald  shown 
witness.)  That  is  the  Herald  and  the  personal.  The  personal  meant  I  was  to  meet  Mr. 
Connors  at  the  corner  of  34th  street  and  Broadway  at  8  o’clock  Monday  evening.  I  put 
in  a  personal  myself,  but  met  Mr.  Conners,  and  he  took  me  to  60th  street  and  10th  ave¬ 
nue  and  met  Scott,  and  afterwards  Dunlap.  Conners  at  this  time  handed  me  a  portion 
of  the  money  taken  from  the  safe;  I  think  about  11200.  I  asked  them  who  took  that 
watch  ?  I  said  it  was  a  small  piece  of  business.  Scott  said  it  was  a  mistake,  and  would 
be  returned.  I  asked  them  if  they  had  any  trouble,  and  Dunlap  said  “no.”  I  asked 
them  if  they  abused  Mr.  Whittelsey,  and  they  said  no  ;  they  struck  him  once  in  the 
breast.  I  had  several  interviews  with  them,  and  during  one  of  them  Dunlap  spoke  of 
Mrs.  Whittelsey  being  a  very  courageous  woman,  and  of  her  stroking  Dunlap’s  hand  when 
they  were  tying  her  husband,  and  begging  them  not  to  hurt  him.  I  met  Dunlap  about 
the  middle  of  the  week,  near  50th  street  and  5th  avenue,  and  at  that  interview  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  conversation  was  the  search  for  the  securities  by  detectives.  I  asked  him  if  Scott 
had  returned  them,  and  he  said  no.  I  told  him  there  was  a  strong  probability  of  the 
securities  being  found,  and  they  had  better  settle/  and  they  could  do  so  safely.  I  also 
tried  Dunlap.  I  had  put  a  personal  in  the  Herald  to  recall  Scott  from  coming  here  after 
the  securities.  It  read:  “Knox,  come  home.”  Conners  told  me  he  would  know  what  it 
meant,  as  he  (Scott)  formerly  had  a  horse  by  that  name.  At  one  of  these  interviews  I 
asked  Scott  and  Dunlap  whether  they  hurt  any  of  these  parties,  and  they  said  they 
frightened  a  servant  girl.  They  complained  that  1‘had  not  told  them  right  in  regard  to 
a  key  of  the  bank  door.  I  explained  how  they  were  wrong,  and  they  said  they  thought 
Mr.  Whittelsey  was  lying  to  them,  because  he  insisted  it  was  the  key  of  the  bank.  I 
made  an  arrangement  to  meet  them  Sunday  night,  the  13th  of  February,  in  New  York, 
and  they  came  about  10  o’clock  in  a  carriage.  I  proposed  to  them  to  allow  the  property 
to  be  found  at  Northampton.  They  wanted  to  know  the  terms,  and  I  told  them  I  didn’t 
know.  I  also  explained  to  them  how  it  could  be  done.  I  finally  left  them  with  an  under¬ 
standing  that  they  were  ready  to  negotiate.  I  asked  Dunlap  if  Scott  had  returned,  and 
he  said  no.  I  know  I  afterwards  met  Scott,  and  he  told  me  he  had  been  in  Springfield. 
When  I  first  saw  them  after  the  robbery,  they  said  they  had  taken  out  $900  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  buying  a  team  to  drive  up  here  and  get  the  securities. 

At  the  interview,  February  13,  I  talked  with  Scott  about  his  journey  to  Springfield,  and 
he  said  they  went  up  from  New  Haven  in  a  sleigh,  drove  to  Hartford  where  they  ex¬ 
changed  their  sleigh  for  a  buggy.  At  Springfield  they  read  an  account  of  the  search  for 
the  bonds,  and  returned  to  New  York. 

My  next  interview  with  them  was  on  the  Wednesday  evening  following.  I  met  only 
Scott,  on  the  corner  of  34th  street  and  Madison  avenue,  and  walked  to  a  beer  saloon 
between  Third  street  and  Lexington  avenue.  He  asked  if  I  had  been  to  Northamp¬ 
ton  and  I  said  yes ;  he  asked  me  what  they  were  willing  to  give  for  the  return  of  the 
securities  and  I  told  him  about  $60,000  ;  he  asked  me  to  get  from  the  bank  a  list  of  the 
value  of  the  securities,  which  I  did,  I  think,  from  Mr.  Williams.  I  showed  it  to  him 
afterwards  and  while  doing  so  he  seemed  to  be  pre-occupied,  and  after  looking  a  while  he 
gave  me  to  understand  that  they  were  not  willing  to  negotiate  on  the  bank’s  terms,  and 
told  me  Dunlap  and  another  had  gone  up  here  to  get  them.  He  evidently  was  suspicious 
of  me.  I  met  him  Friday  evening  next  at  a  lager  beer  saloon  ;  he  placed  himself  where 
he  could  see  the  entrance  to  the  saloon.  I  asked  him  if  Dunlap  had  returned  and  he  said 
“  yes,”  but  he  was  sick,  having  broke  into  Mill  river  when  coming  back.  He  said  the 
securities  were  in  New  York,  and  he  wanted  me  to  go  down  and  see  them.  He  made  an 
appointment  two  nights  afterwards,  which  I  kept,  but  never  saw  him  then  nor  afterwards 
until  the  following  ISeptembex*,  when  I  saw  him  in  University  Park,  and  asked  him  if  he 
was  not  going  to  settle  the  matter  and  give  me  a  share  of  the  securities,  and  he  said  “not 

a  d - d  cent.”  I  asked  him  why,  and  he  said  that  I  had  given  the  whole  party  away. 

I  denied  it  and  tried  to  induce  them  to  settle.  During  the  interview,  I  asked  him  if  he 
was  certain  I  had  given  the  party  away,  and  he  said  no,  as  I  could  not  have  been  selling 
them.  I  never  saw  him  again  until  the  9th  of  November,  when  I  met  Mr.  Scott,  who 
told  me  those  men  wanted  to  see  me.  I  told  him  I  wanted  to  speak  to  my  family,  and 
he  finally  consented.  We  went  finally  on  the  outskirts  of  Prospect  Park,  where  I  met 
both  Scott  and  Dunlap.  We  talked  over  the  division.  I  asked  if  all  the  party  would  be 
satisfied  with  a  division  which  would  give  each  his  fair  portion,  and  Scott  said  thej  would 


8 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


have  to  do  so.  I  told  them  everything  I  knew,  and  Scott  said  I  told  them  nothing  they 

did  not  know,  while  Dunlap  said  it  was  “alia  d - d  lie,”  and  he  didn’t  believe  a  word 

of  it.  Dunlap  wanted  to  know  what  the  Northampton  people  would  give  to  let  him  go. 

I  told  him  I  didn’t  know  ;  I  thought  $100,000,  or,  perhaps  $150,000  ;  he  said  if  they 
would  do  that  they  could  have  their  securities.  I  told  them  they  could  arrange  an  inter¬ 
view  with  the  bank  people,  but  they  said  the  bank  people  knew  where  to  find  them  if  they 
wanted  them.  I  told  them  they  had  better  settle  very  soon,  as  they  were  well  known 
by  others,  and  were  in  danger,  for  up  to  that  time,  the  9th  of  November,  I  had  not 
opened  my  lips  about  them  to  a  living  man.  The  Sunday  following  I  met  Scott  at 
“  Red  ”  Leary’s,  near  Hamilton  Ferry,  in  New  York.  I  told  them  I  had  seen  Mr. 
Williams,  and  they  could  settle  it.  He  threatened  me  at  that  time  if  there  was  trouble, 
as  I  told  him  there  would  surely  be.  I  left  him  with  the  promise  from  him  that  he 
would  see  Mr.  Williams.  He  said  he  was  not  afraid  to  get  arrested  and  always  carried  a 
thousand  dollars  to  ventilate  old  Herring,  if  they  were  arrested.  The  name  of  the  third 
man  at  the  Prospect  Park  interview  was  John  Leary.  '  Mr.  Connors  was  to  have  the 
negotiation  of  the  division  of  the  plunder  and  I  took  Mr.  Williams  to  Connors  at  G16 
Broadway  ;  (exceptions  taken  ;)  I  think  it  was  Wednesday  evening,  November  15  ;  (ex¬ 
ceptions  taken.)  Have  known  Scott  under  the  names  of  Robert  Bush  and  Mitchell,  and 
Dunlap  under  the  names  of  Horace  C.  Hill  and  Borden. 

Edson  Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Sweetser. 

Have  been  employed  by  Herring  since  .Tune,  1872,  to  January,  1877,  when  I  resigned. 
Was  in  the  harness  business  in  Minneapolis,  Minnesota,  three  years  prior  ;  was  in  N.  YT. 
three  months  prior,  and  in  Montreal,  Canada  ;  previous  to  that  in  Philadelphia  ;  had 
some  trouble  when  I  left  Boston  ;  I  was  arrested  in  Boston  at  the  instance  of  a  woman, 
who  tried  to  black  mail  me  ;  the  first  bank  I  was  concerned  iu  attempting  to  rob  was  the 
First  National  Bank  of  Elmira  ;  the  second  was  the  bank  in  Quincy,  Ill.  ;  the  attempt  at 
Elmira  was  in  1873,  and  at  Saratoga  in  1874,  and  the  Long  Island  National  in  the  winter 
of  1874  and  1875  ;  the  next  was  at  Covington,  Ky.,  in  March,  1875,  and  the  bank  at 
Rockville,  Conn.,  in  1875,  and  at  Pittston,  Pa.,  November,  1875,  and  Northampton  Na¬ 
tional,  Jan.  26,  1876.  There  was  an  attempt  at  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,  and  at  Nantucket,  I 
think,  in  the  summer  of  1873,  and  the  Third  National  Bank  of  Syracuse  in  June,  1875. 
I  got  out  of  the  Bank  of  Illinois  $7,600  ;  out  of  the  Pittston  $850.  Never  had  a  quarrel 
with  Scott  and  Dunlap  before  the  Northampton  bank  robbery.  Had  hard  feelings  against 
them  in  April,  1874,  when  they  robbed  and  beat  me. 

I  superintended  putting  in  the  doors  of  the  Northampton  bank  for  Herring  &  Co.,  in 
1874.  I  might  have  arranged  it  so  that  a  visit  to  the  Cashier  would  not  have  been  necessary. 
I  told  the  story  which  I  have,  for  self-interest  and  self-protection.  Firstmentioned  that  I 
was  a  party  to  the  crime  in  November,  1876.  I  considered  that  the  parties  concerned  in 
the  robbery  had  not  treated  me  fairly,  and  I  wanted  to  have  them  restore  the  money  to 
parties  who  needed  it.  I  first  had  an  intimation  that  it  was  knowu  I  was  connected  with 
the  Northampton  bank  robbery  from  John  Kenney,  a  professional  thief  in  Newr  York, 
who  said  there  was  not  an  old  knuck-moll  in  New  York  who  didn’t  know  all  about  it.  I 
was  offered  from  $10,000  to  $25,000,  by  Mr.  Edwards  of  the  bank,  to  make  a  clean  breast 
of  it.  I  was  influenced  to  do  so  by  the  fact  that  I  had  given  my  word  to  Mr.  Williams 
that  he  should  have  the  property  back. 

At  an  interview  with  Mr.  Williams  at  the  5th  Avenue  Hotel,  I  told  him  that  if  he 
would  guarantee  $100,000  and  give  me  my  own  way,  I  would  try  and  get  the  property 
back. 

Wednesday— Third  Day. 

EXCITING  SCENE  IN  THE  COURT  ROOM — UR.  SWEETSER  ABRUPTLY  WITHDRAWS  FROM 

THE  CASE. 

At  the  opening  of  the  court  on  Wednesday  morning,  Mr.  Gillett  stated  that  the  gov¬ 
ernment  desired  to  withdraw  so  much  of  the  evidence  of  the  witness  Edson,  given  on 
Tuesday,  as  related  to  what  was  said  concerning  the  visit  of  Connors  to  Springfield.  At 
the  time  these  statements  were  testified  to,  Mr.  Sweetser  objected  and  gave  notice  of 
exceptions,  whereupon  the  District  Attorney  withdrew  them.  Mr.  Sweetser  claimed  at 
the  time  that  they  could  not  be  withdrawn  after  having  been  made  in  the  presence  of  the 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANE  ROBBERS. 


9 


jury,  without  leaving  more  or  less  of  effect  prejudicial  to  the  defendants  upon  the  minds 
of  the  jurors.  The  Judge  then  ruled  them  all  out,  and  stated  that  he  should  so  instruct 
the  jury. 

Immediately  after  Mr.  Gillett  had  moved  to  have  Connors’  statements  ruled  out,  on 
Wednesday  morning,  Mr.  Sweetser  said  that  if  matters  were  to  b.e  placed  before  the  jury, 
which  leave  an  impression  upon  the  minds  of  the  jury,  which  even  the  instructions  of 
the  court  could  not  remove,  and  which  the  defense  could  not  remove  by  evidence,  “  I 
shall  retire  from  this  court  house,  for  I  can  no  longer  benefit  these  defendants,  if  such  a 
course  is  pursued.” 

The  Judge  said  he  remembered  that  his  ruling  was  in  accordance  with  what  he  had 
stated,  and  he  should  now  rule  as  he  ruled  then.  “I  shall  rule  all  evidence  out  in  regard 
to  Connors’  statements,  when  the  defendants  were  not  present.” 

At  this  point,  Mr.  Sweetser  picked  up  his  hat  and  left  the  court-room,  proceeding  to 
the  Mansion  House.  Edson  was  then  on  the  stand,  awaiting  the  continuance  of  the 
cross-examination.  The  court-room  was  crowded,  every  available  place  being  occupied. 
The  scene  was  intensely  exciting.  It  was  dramatic.  Everyone  instinctively  asked,  What 
does  this  mean  ?  Is  it  for  effect  P  or,  Is  it  an  honest  abandonment  of  the  case  for  cause 
deemed  sufficient  ?  The  Bond  Brothers  seemed  to  be  as  much  surprised  by  the  action  of 
Sweetser  as  any  of  the  audience ;  and  apparently  the  prisoners  were  surprised.  They 
appeared  agitated,  nervous.  The  Bond  Brothers  counseled  together  a  few  minutes,  and. 
conferred  with  the  prisoners.  Then  they  asked  of  the  court  a  delay  of  a  few  minutes 
that  they  might  go  out  and  consult  Mr.  Sweetser. 

The  Judge  replied  that  he  did  not  know  that  he  was  called  upon  to  allow  delay  for  con¬ 
sultation  with  Mr.  Sweetser.  “He  is  out  of  the  case  by  his  own  statement,  and  has 
withdrawn  from  it,  for  effect,  as  I  believe.” 

Mr.  Bond  said  be  hardly  thought  His  Honor  was  justified  in  making  that  statement. 

The  J udge  replied — I  know  what  I  ruled  yesterday,  and  Mr.  Sweetser  attempted  to 
have  me  rule  otherwise  to-day.  When  it  is  threatened  that  counsel  will  withdraw  from  the 
case  unless  I  hack  down,  then  I  don’t  hack  down.  This  announcement,  given  in  a  calm, 
yet  very  firm  and  decided  manner,  was  greeted  with  a  rustle  of  suppressed  applause,  and 
had  it  not  been  for  the  restraint  of  the  court-room,  the  outburst  of  approval  would  have 
been  universal  and  uproarious. 

The  Judge  again  said  he  should  instruct  the  jury  to  strike  out  all  evidence  of  Connors 
relating  to  the  case. 

Mr.  Bond  said  he  did  not  think  the  prisoners  should  suffer  because  Mr.  Sweetser  had 
had  a  little  misunderstanding  with  the  court.  Mr.  Sweetser  believed  the  court  had  done 
wrong,  and  he  (Bond)  believed  Sweetser  was  honest  in  saying  what  he  had  said. 

The  Judge  decided  to  allow  a  reasonable  time  for  consultation,  and  Mr.  H.  H.  Bond 
left  the  court-room  and  went  to  the  Mansion  House,  where  he  found  Mr.  Sweetser  and 
had  a  conference  with  him  ;  after  which  he  returned  to  the  court-room,  and  announced 
to  the  court  that  they  would  go  on  with  the  case. 

Mr.  D.  W.  Bond  then  took  up  the  cross-examination  of  Edson,  who  testified  as  fol¬ 
lows  : — My  wife  is  living.  Have  only  one  wife.  Was  married  in  1865.  Had  nothing  to 
do  with  an  attempt  to  rob  the  Sixth  Avenue  bank  at  New  York,  in  the  summer  of  1876 
— furnished  no  plans,  pencil  work,  drawings  or  cards.  Scott  and  Dunlap  stated  to  me 
that  they  entered  the  bank,  alone.  Here  the  cross-examination  stopped. 

The  next  witness  was  Albert  Holt,  paymaster  of  the  Boston  and  Albany  railroad  com¬ 
pany.  On  January  25,  1876,  at  about  8  A.  M.  he  saw  two  men  crossing  Main  street, 
Springfield,  from  Cooley’s  hotel.  Was  in  front  of  them.  Afterwards  saw  the  same  men 
come  out  of  the  depot  and  pass  down  the  street,  where  they  met  three  other  men, 
with  whom  they  talked  a  minute,  and  then  separated.  In  the  afternoon,  saw  the  two 
turn  down  Pynchon  street,  where  they  again  met  the  three  men,  with  whom  they  had  a 
conversation  and  separated.  Saw  the  two  men  the  next  morning  enter  a  store  on  Main 
street.  Have  no  doubt  about  either  day.  They  were  strangers.  One  was  taller  than  the 
other  ;  had  a  dark  complexion  and  a  small  moustache.  The  other  had  light  hair  and  a 
moustache.  Saw  the  same  men  at  the  examination  of  this  case.  I  see  them  here, 
(pointing  to  Scott  and  Dunlap.)  Been  paymaster  of  the  B.  and  A.  road  19  years. 

Cross-examined.  Saw  the  two  men  a  few  minutes  on  January  25.  One  wore  his  hair 
long,  and  a  silk  hat. 

Benjamin  Franklin,  one  of  Pinkerton’s  detectives,  saw  the  defendants  February  11, 


10 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


1877,  at  the  depot  in  Philadelphia.  They  were  on  the  express  train  going  South.  Had 
a  warrant  for  their  arrest.  Took  them  off  the  train.  They  had  a  package  with  them. 
District  Attorney  desired  to  prove  that  this  package  contained  burglars’  tools  like  those 
found  in  Whittelsey’s  house,  but  court  ruled  that  he  could  not.  Their  tickets  were  for 
Richmond,  Va.  Witness  identified  the  handwriting  of  Scott  and  Dunlap.  Showed  them 
the  warrant  when  they  were  arrested.  Told  them  my  name  and  business.  They  said  I 
was  mistaken.  Scott  would  not  admit  his  identity  and  would  not  sign  the  order  for  the 
return  of  his  money.  They  made  no  admissions.  Witness  was  not  cross-examined. 

Mrs.  Whittelsey.  The  first  thing  I  heard,  a  man  came  into  the  room,  and  I  heard 
screaming  through  the  house,  and  then  a  tall  man  came  into  the  room  where  we  were, 
and  then  Mr.  Whittelsey  and  Mrs.  Page  and  myself  were  requested  to  get  up  and  dress, 
which  request  we  obeyed.  I  assisted  Mr.  Whittelsey  to  dress,  and  it  seemed  to  annoy  the 
tall  man  who  seemed  to  give  the  orders,  and  he  requested  me  to  go  over  to  the  other  side 
of  the  room,  and  I  did  so.  By  the  light  of  a  dark  lantern  which  they  carried,  I  could 
well  see  their  movements.  They  opened  all  the  bureau  drawers  and  scattered  the  con¬ 
tents  over  the  floor,  and  the  tall  man  requested  one  attendant  to  look  after  them.  My  at¬ 
tendant  requested  Mrs.  Page  and  myself  to  be  seated,  and  we  were,  and  he  seated  himself 
beside  us.  We  sat  there  some  time,  about  half  an  hour.  I  requested  him  to  treat  Mr. 
Whittelsey  kindly,  and  he  said  he  would,  if  he  did  as  they  requested  him.  I  asked  him  if 
he  had  a  wife.  He  replied  that  he  had.  I  theu  asked  him  if  he  had  any  children,  and 
he  said  yes.  I  asked  him  how  old  they  were,  and  he  said  not  very  old,  and  then  he  told 
me  we  could  go  into  another  room.  One  of  the  party  had  on  a  black  cap,  and  they  wore 
masks.  We  were  liberated  about  6.30  A.  M.  I  think  we  were  in  our  room  until  1  o’clock. 
They  spoke  to  each  other.  I  counted  five  as  the  dark  lanterns'  light  came  together.  They 
addressed  each  other.  I  heard  numbers  called,  and  supposed  they  were  known  by  num¬ 
bers.  The  tall  one  gave  the  orders.  He  was  very  nervous  in  manner  all  the  evening,  aud 
manifested  it  by  shrugging  his  shoulders,  and  in  other  ways.  The  attendant  with  me 
was  far  more  self-possessed  and  gentlemanly.  It  took  a  long  time  to  handcuff  and  bind 
us.  It  may  have  been  two  hours.  Mrs.  Page’s  right  hand  was  fastened  to  my  left  hand. 
Our  ankles  were  fastened,  and  ropes  fastened  us  to  the  bed.  As  I  sat  beside  the  attend¬ 
ant,  who  had  charge  of  me,  I  stroked  his  wrist.  He  remained  with  us  until  we  were 
taken  into  my  room.  I  did  not  see  him  afterwards.  I  heard  the  conversation  between 
the  man  who  had  charge  of  Mr.  Whittelsey  and  the  ladies  ;  he  asked  him  where  his  vest 
was,  and  if  he  hadn’t  got  but  one  suit  of  clothes;  they  went  to  the  closet  and  got  a  vest; 
I  told  him  it  was  no  use  taking  Mr.  Whittelsey  to  the  bank,  as  he  could  not  open  it  with¬ 
out  Mr.  Warriner  and  Mr.  Prince.  He  said  he  had  both  of  them. 

M  rs.  Whittelsey  identified  Scott  and  Dunlap  as  the  men  who  were  in  her  house.  She 
knew  them  by  their  size,  voice,  and  peculiarity  of  manner;  Scott’s  nervous  manner  and 
peculiarity  of  shoulders.  Have  seen  him  since,  at  the  Town  Hall  and  the  jail.  Once 
since  his  arrest,  while  behind  Scott,  I  noticed  that  peculiarity  of  the  shoulders  and  the 
shrug  which  I  saw  that  night.  Dunlap’s  voice  is  like  that  of  my  attendant  that  night, 
and  his  manner  is  like  his,  quiet  and  self-possessed.  The  next  morning  spoke  of  the 
stroking  of  my  attendant's  hand.  This  evidence  (as  to  the  stroking  of  the  hand)  was 
withdrawn  by  the  prosecution,  by  leave  of  the  court,  to  which  Mr.  Bond  objected  and 
saved  an  exception.  He  said  he  wished  to  “  save  whatever  rights  we  have,  but  didn't 
know  as  we  had  any.  ” 

Mrs.  Whittelsey  then  testified  to  noticing  the  grass  in  the  rear  of  the  house,  near  some 
bushes,  in  July  or  August,  1875,  flattened,  as  if  a  person  bad  laid  upon  it.  Saw  it  only 
one  time,  and  spoke  to  Mr.  W  hittelsey  about  it. 

Cross-examined.  My  attendant  wore  a  light  mask ;  not  a  white  one;  think  it  was  one 
of  the  masks  shown  here.  There  was  but  little  conversation  between  the  men  when  in 
the  house.  The  tall  man  gave  directions.  As  we  passed  through  the  hall  we  saw  Mr. 
\\  hittelsey  sitting  on  the  sofa  with  one  or  two  attendants.  This  was  about  3  o’clock. 
The  gags  were  applied  between  3  and  4  o’clock.  We  were  not  gagged  until  long  after  we 
were  bound.  The  tall  man  seemed  very  nervous  and  impatient,  and  one  time,  when  we 
were  talking  with  our  guard,  said  “  hush.”  He  had  a  long  linen  duster  and  a  white 
mask  fitting  very  smoothly  over  his  head.  They  were  very  cautious  about  their  lanterns. 

1  hey  were  placed  in  position,  and  ordered  to  be  careful  about  turning  around  with  their 
lanterns.  Have  seen  two  of  these  men  since,  in  the  chapel  at  the  jail.  Think  the  tall 
one  was  the  cue  who  came  into  my  room  and  led  me  out.  The  other  one  I  identified  by 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


11 


his  general  manner.  The  tall  one  I  noticed  by  the  shrug  of  the  shoulders.  The  one 
who  had  charge  of  ns  was  perfectly  self-possessed,  and  much  more  gentlemanly  than  any 
of  the  others.  The  tall  man  was  very  impatient  and  imperative  in  his  tones.  In  the 
morning,  when  we  were  released,  we  found  the  different  costumes  they  had  worn,  their 
masks,  etc.  They  first  came  to  the  house  between  12  and  1  o’clock.  They  were  in  the 
house  more  than  an  hour,  and  Scott  and  Dunlap  were  in  our  presence  all  the  time.  I  saw 
the  men  in  the  chapel  only  a  few  minutes.  I  afterwards  heard  them  talking  in  the  jail 
for  a  considerable  time.  I  then  recognized  the  voices  of  both.  I  think  of  nothing  except 
what  I  have  stated  which  leads  me  to  identify  the  prisoners.  I  don’t  remember  my  lan¬ 
guage  at  the  examination;  think  I  spoke  of  the  shrug  of  the  shoulders  then.  Am  not 
positive  what  I  said  about  Dunlap’s  voice.  I  only  know  it  was  a  medium  voice,  and  very 
pleasant,  and  with  his  gentlemanly  manner  impressed  me  very  much.  I  don’t  remember 
who  wore  the  cambric  mask. 

Mrs.  Page.  This  witness  was  formerly  Miss  Mattie  C.  White.  She  was  an  inmate  of 
Mr.  Wbittelsey’s  house  at  the  time  of  the  burglary.  She  testified  as  follows:  I  was  awak¬ 
ened  between  12  and  1  in  the  morning,  by  some  one  coming  into  my  room,  and  I  screamed. 
He  told  me  to  keep  quiet,  and  requested  me  to  get  up.  I  begged  of  him  to  let  me  remain 
where  I  was,  but  be  said  no.  I  then  got  up  and  went  into  the  room  where  Mrs.  Whittel- 
sey  was,  and  we  were  handcuffed  together.  Some  one  in  the  room  asked  where  the  young 
lady  went ;  he  immediately  replied,  “  Here  she  is,”  looking  at  me.  Shortly  after,  Mr. 
Whittelsey,  Mrs.  Whittelsey  and  myself  were  ordered  to  dress,  and  after  we  dressed  we 
were  placed  in  chairs  at  the  other  side  of  the  room.  I  asked  him  what  time  it  was ;  he 
took  his  watch  out  of  his  pocket,  and  remarked  it  was  shortly  after  12.  Mrs.  Page  was 
positive  iu  identifying  Scott  and  Dunlap.  Scott’s  hight,  general  bearing,  and  shrug  of 
the  shoulders  made  a  strong  impression  on  her  mind  that  night,  and  she  had  never  for¬ 
gotten  it.  He  was  impulsive  and  not  self-possessed,  while  Dunlap,  when  he  had  charge 
of  herself  and  Mrs.  Whittelsey,  was  entirely  cool  and  gentlemanly.  On  seeing  them  at 
the  jail  chapel,  she  recognized  them  both  by  their  appearance  and  their  voices,  and  when 
the  examination  took  place  before  the  magistrate,  these  impressions  were  confirmed. 

Charles  Shuler,  clerk  of  the  Wyoming  Valley  Hotel,  at  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,  exhibited  the 
hotel  register  for  1875,-  and  under  date  of  August  5,  was  recorded  the  name,  “  R.  C.  Hill, 
Boston.”  Thought  he  saw  the  party  sign  his  name.  Do  not  know  Scott  or  Dunlap.  The 
name  of  Wm.  D.  Edson  is  also  recorded  in  the  registry,  below  Hill’s.  Paid  40  cents  for 
a  telegram  sent  to  or  by  K.  0.  Hill. 

Edson,  recalled.  Identified  his  signature  on  the  hotel  register.  Also  identified  the 
signature  of  R.  C.  Hill  as  the  signature  of  Dunlap. 

R.  E.  Jamison,  telegraph  operator  at  Wilkesbarre,  exhibited  several  original  telegrams 
sent  from  that  place,  August  5,  1875.  Did  not  know  who  wrote  them,  or  whether  there 
was  any  reply. 

Edson ,  recalled.  Shown  one  of  the  telegrams,  and  asked  whose  handwriting  it  was. 
Said  it  was  Dunlap’s.  (Objected  to  and  exceptions  taken.)  The  District  Attorney  read 
the  telegram  : 

Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,  Aug.  5,  1875. 

To  W.  L.  Edwards,  241  West  Fifty-second  street,  New  York. 

Come  to-morrow.  R.  C.  Hill. 

James  L.  Warriner,  Vice  President  of  the  Northampton  Bank,  testified  to  seeing  Edson 
in  the  bank  in  the  autumn  of  1875.  Gave  him  the  keys  of  the  vault  to  file.  That  was 
in  the  latter  part  of  November,  1875.  Think  it  was  the  22d.  He  took  them  into  the 
directors’  room,  and  kept  them  about  ten  minutes.  This  was  before  the  new  dials  were 
put  on.  Had  a  talk  with  Edson  about  the  combination  and  who  had  it.  He  said  it  was 
not  safe  for  the  young  clerk  to  have  it.  Afterward  there  was  a  change  made  in  the  dis¬ 
tribution  of  the  combination,  Mr.  Whittelsey  taking  the  whole  of  it.  Edson  knew  of 
this  change. 

Afternoon — Wednesday. 

West  Sexton,  clerk  of  the  Rockingham  House,  Springfield.  Scott  came  there  with 
another  man  in  February,  1876.  They  came  with  a  pair  of  horses  and  wagon  ;  stopped 
oyer  night,  arising  between  four  and  six  o’clock  and  leaving  the  next  morning  ;  did  not 
give  any  account  of  where  they  came  from,  or  where  they  were  going.  They  took  supper. 
I  identify  Scott  by  his  countenance.  Saw  a  Mr.  Clark  in  the  hotel  about  that  time. 


12 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


Scott  had  a  moustache,  but  no  whiskers  ;  the  moustache  was  not  a  heavy  one.  The  day 
after  Scott  left  there  was  a  heavy,  thick-set  man  of  medium  height  asked  for  him.  I  did 
not  know  him. 

Cross-examined.  Did  not  see  the  men  arrive.  Saw  them  after  they  were  in  the 
house.  Saw  them  while  there  about  an  hour.  That  was  all  the  time  I  saw  them. 
Looked  the  team  over  very  carefully,  perhaps  more  carefully  than  the  men. 

Capt.  E.  C.  Clark .  livery-stable  keeper  at  Northampton.  Was  at  the  Rockingham 
House,  Springfield,  February  9,  1876.  Was  there  only  once. 

Thomas  A.  Gallagher,  one  of  Pinkerton’s  detectives.  Have  known  Scott  since 
November,  1876  ;  have  watched  him  for  days  at  a  time  ;  have  noticed  a  peculiar  shrug  of 
his  shoulders  when  he  walked.  It  was  a  habit.  He  refused  to  give  his  name  when 
arrested  and  brought  before  a  Philadelphia  magistrate,  February  14,  1877  ;  was  present 
when  he  was  arrested,  and  present  when  he  was  before  the  mgaistrate. 
Was  on  the  train  when  they  were  arrested.  Scott  and  Dunlap  were 
on  their  way  to  Richmond,  and  were  to  go  by  different  routes  to  Washing¬ 
ton.  There  was  a  small  hand-sack  in  the  car  when  they  were  arrested,  and  Scott  was 
asked  if  it  belonged  to  him,  and  he  nodded  his  head,  as  if  to  say  yes.  Objection  was 
made  to  witness  stating  what  was  in  the  bag. 

Cashier  Whittelsey  produced  the  records  of  the  bank,  to  prove  its  legal  organization. 

L.  B.  Williams,  one  of  the  directors  of  the  Northampton  Bank,  testified  to  going  to 
New  York  in-1876  to  see  about  the  stolen  funds.  Had  a  meeting  with  Connors,  by  ar¬ 
rangement  of  Edson. 

Oscar  Edwards,  President  of  the  Bank,  testified  that  he  had  noticed  a  peculiarity  about 
Scott’s  shrugging  his  shoulders.  Noticed  it  in  the  town  hall,  during  the  examination. 
Sat  behind  him  there,  and  within  a  few  feet  of  him. 

H.  R.  Hinckley,  a  director  of  the  Bank,  had  also  noticed  the  shrug  of  Scott’s 
shoulders.  Saw  it  at  the  town  hall. 

The  Evidence  All  In. 

At  this  point,  the  District  Attorney  announced  that  the  government  rested  the  case. 
Mr.  Bond  then  said  that  without  proceeding  with  any  evidence,  he  desired  to  file  the 
depositions,  several  of  which  he  handed  to  the  Clerk.  He  announced  that  the  defense 
would  not  offer  any  evidence,  nor  make  any  argument  to  the  jury.  The  District 
Attorney,  Mr.  Gillett,  Mr.  Delano  and  the  bank  officers  then  held  a  short  consultation, 
after  which  Mr.  Gillett,  in  view  of  the  anomalous  position  in  which  they  had  been  placed 
by  the  refusal  of  the  defense  to  offer  either  evidence  or  argument,  while  having,  as  well 
known,  a  large  crowd  of  witnesses  in  attendance,  asked  the  court  for  a  few 
minutes  for  consultation.  The  Judge  granted  the  request,  and  announced  a  recess  of 
15  minutes. 

The  counsel  for  the  prosecution,  accompanied  by  the  bank  officers,  then  retired  from 
the  court-room,  and  returned  after  an  absence  of  15  minutes,  when  Mr.  Gillett  at  once 
proceeded  to  address  the  court  and  the  jury. 


Argument  of  Mr.  Gillett. 


May  it  Please  your  Honor,  Mr.  Foreman,  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury. 

It  has  never  been  my  misfortune  to  address  a  jury  of  my  country,  under  circumstances 
quite  so  embarrassing  as  at  this  present  moment.  We  have  an  important  case,  begun  on 
Monday,  with  every  probability  of  its  extending  through  the  week.  I  had  supposed  that, 
by  the  request  and  courtesy  of  the  learned  District  Attorney,  who  has  asked  me  to  render 
such  assistance  as  I  could  in  the  case,  I  should  have  an  opportunity,  fitly  to  the  occasion, 
to  prepare  some  brief,  and  to  present  to  you  some  considered  thoughts.  At  all  events,  T 
was  sure,  what  the  counsel  so  well  understood,  it  devolving  on  the  government  to  close 
the  case,  that  arguments  and  suggestions  bearing  upon  it  would  be  abundantly  presented, 
as  an  attempt  was  made  to  reply  to  the  arguments  of  the  defendants.  But  suddenly,  un¬ 
expectedly,  we  find  that  the  defendants  say  they  have  nothing  more  to  say.  This  array 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


13 


of  witnesses  is  silent ;  eloquent  counsel  are  silent.  Perhaps  it  might  behoove  the  govern¬ 
ment  to  be  silent,  too.  I  don’t  think  so,  especially  taking  into  account  the  dramatic 
scene  we  witnessed  here  this  morning.  You  will  remember  that  the  senior  counsel  in 
this  case,  who  came  down  here  among  us,  from  the  eminences  of  the  profession  in  Boston, 
apparently,  and  I  say  apparently  and  speciously,  assumed  to  desert  the  case,  because,  for¬ 
sooth,  he  had  been  unfairly  treated  in  the  investigation  of  affairs. 

Gentlemen,  you  believe  that  that  was  mere  strategy  aud  pretense.  The  learned  gentle¬ 
man  had  followed  his  client  through  these  mazes,  till  at  last  hope  went  out,  and  he  saw 
that  the  ship  was  sinking,  and  with  prudent  caution  made  some  pretense  by  which  he 
could  escape  from  the  wreck.  .  There  is  no  other  construction  to  be  placed  upon  it.  Not 
a  young  man,  trying  a  case  before  a  court  for  the  first  time  and  suddenly  surprised  ;  but 
an  old  veteran  at  the  bar,  trying  his  case  before  a  learned  court,  with  wisdom  and  ex¬ 
perience,  knowing  too  that  the  fact  of  any  misruling  or  any  fault  of  the  court  here,  was 
to  be  transferred  to  the  Supreme  Court,  where  everything  could  be  revised,  It  was  not 
because  he  did  not  expect  a  fair  trial.  He  knew  that  if  it  could  be  of  any  service,  or  if 
he  supposed  it  could  be  of  any  service  to  his  clients  to  remain  here,  if  he  supposed  their 
case  was  not  desperate  and  everything  past  surgery,  it  would  be  ignominious  for  him  to 
desert  it,  and  he  left  the  court  house  simply  because  it  was  the  most  wise  and  the  most 
prudent  thing  he  could  do  in  behalf  of  his  clients. 

And  when  the  second  act  of  this  farce  was  attempted  to  be  played  off  upon  ns  by  a 
second  abandonment  of  the  case,  it  didn’t  seem  to  the  counsel  for  the  government  that  it 
was  quite  fair  to  the  large  interests  of  the  community,  that  they  should  leave  the  case,  at 
least  without  making  some  suggestions,  in  hope  that  they  should  be  a  guide  or  an 
assistance  in  aiding  the  jury  to  come  to  some  correct  conclusion  ;  that  the  defendants 
should  not  escape  under  the  dust  and  smoke  which  their  counsel  has  excited.  And  for 
this  reason,  gentlemen,  I  propose,  in  a  very  plain  way,  and  in  a  very  brief  way,  to  offer 
some  suggestions  why  you  should  find  a  verdict  of  guilty  against  these  two  defendants, 
Scott  and  Dunlap. 

I  recognize  the  burden  that  is  assumed  by  the  commonwealth,  and  that  is  to  prove  that 
the  defendants  are  guilty  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt.  I  assume  that  they  are  en¬ 
titled,  as  every  defendant  is  entitled,  no  matter  what  has  been  his  past  history  of  infamy, 
and  no  matter  how  enormous  have  been  his  offences,  he  is  entitled,  they  are  entitled,  to 
every  benefit  which  the  law  gives  to  any  criminal  ;  that  the  assumption  is  that  they  are 
innocent,  that  they  come  with  that  shield  over  their  heads,  turning  every  way  to  protect 
them  till  it  is  thrust  aside  by  the  hand  of  testimony.  But,  gentlemen,  assuming  this 
burden,  assuming  all  that  the  law  places  upon  us,  we  sav  that  the  government  has  a  case 
here  that  is  clear  and  indisputable.  And  when  it  is  said  that  a  defendant  must  be  proved 
to  be  guilty  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  gentlemen,  there  is  no  mystery  about  that. 
Sometimes  the  suggestion  is  made  that  jurors,  when  they  leave  their  homes  and  come  to 
the  court  house,  and  assume  the  responsibilities  of  jurors,  they  are  to  lay  aside,  for  the  time 
being,  some  of  the  attributes  and  faculties  which  are  to  control  their  judgments  and  their  de¬ 
cisions  in  the  common  pursuits  of  life.  Not  at  all.  You  are  selected  to  act  here  in  order 
that  you  may  bring  precisely  that  same  wisdom  and  that  same  common  sense  that  you 
do  apply  to  every-day  affairs  and  circumstances.  I  have  heard,  perhaps  you  have  heard, 
sometimes,  after  some  important  trial,  or  some  not  important  trial,  a  juryman  say  :  “  I 

hadn’t  any  doubt  about  the  defendant’s  guilt.  I  thought  the  defendant  was  guilty.  The 
evidence  convinced  me  that  he  was  guilty  ;  but  then  that  ‘reasonable  doubt !  ’  It  wan’t 
proved  to  my  mind  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.”  Gentlemen,  when  evidence  is  sufficient  to 
satisfy  your  reason  and  your  judgment  conclusively,  in  the  same  way  that  it  would  satisfy 
your  reason  and  your  judgment  in  regard  to  any  affairs  of  importance,  it  is  sufficient  to 
satisfy  your  reason  and  judgment  in  a  criminal  case  ;  and  no  man,  either  of  wisdom,  or 
sense,  or  first-rate  nonsense,  will  presume  that  any  different  laws  of  evidence,  any  differ¬ 
ent  conviction  of  the  mind  and  the  judgment,  are  required  in  coming  to  any  decision  upon 
any  important  subject  which  shall  affect  your  own  property  or  your  own  safety. 

Now,  gentlemen,  you  come  to  the  consideration  of  the  facts  of  the  case.  The  evidence 
seems  to  divide  itself  into  two  parts  :  first,  the  evidence  of  those  persons  who  live  in  North¬ 
ampton  and  in  its  immediate  vicinity  ;  and  second,  the  evidence  of  an  accomplice  in  this 
matter  by  the  name  of  Edson  ;  and  in  considering  this  we  propose  in  the  first  place  to  ask 
you  to  give  your  attention  to  the  consideration  of  the  testimony  of  Edson.  There  are  a 
few  facts  in  the  case  that  are  undisputed.  It  appears  that  on  the  25th  of  January,  1876, 


14 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


the  family  of  Mr.  Whittelsey,  residing  in  this  quiet  town,  retired  to  their  beds  at  night, 
entitled  to  the  tranquility  which  sleep  brings  to  the  honest  labor,  toil  and  fatigue  of  the 
day.  About  midnight,  a  band  of  masked  ruffians  entered  the  dwelling  house  by  means 
of  false  keys.  Finding  themselves  in  the  interior,  they  move  quietly  up  the  stairs 
to  where  the  family  are  sleeping,  and  suddenly  a  crash  from  heavy  sledge  hammers  breaks 
down  the  doors,  and  the  occupants  are  confronted  by  these  masked  men.  Yon  know  the 
scene  that  followed.  They  are  handcuffed,  they  are  gagged,  they  are  bound  hand  and 
foot,  they  are  threatened.  One  of  the  parties,  Mr.  Whittelsey,  who  had  in  his  knowledge 
facts  essential  to  the  breaking  of  the  bank,  has  them  extorted  from  him  by  brutality,  by 
the  wringing  of  the  ears,  by  the  choking  of  the  throat,  by  the  application  of  torture  to 
the  chest,  and  after  remaining  in  the  house  for  a  while,  a  part  of  them  depart,  leaving 
the  house  in  sentinelship.  The  next  morning  the  bank  is  found  to  have  been  entered, 
and  ultimately  it  appears  that  it  has  been  plundered  of  a  million  dollars’  worth  of  prop¬ 
erty.  The  question  is,  who  did  it  ?  If  we  need  positive  evidence  on  this  point,  we  have 
it.  We  have  the  confession  of  Scott  and  Dunlap,  made  over  and  over  again  to  a  man  by 
the  name  of  Edson  ;  we  have  the  coufession  of  these  men  made  to  this  man.  But  I  sup¬ 
pose  it  will  be  claimed  that  it  is  not,  has  not  been,  believed,  and  that  you  are  to  put  no 
confidence  in  him,  because  he  is  an  accomplice. 

Now,  gentlemen,  the  law  provides  that  an  accomplice  not  only  may  be  a  witness,  but 
the  law  provides  also  that  the  jury  has  the  right  to  convict  a  man  of  murder,  or  of  any 
other  crime,  upon  the  evidence  of  an  accomplice  solely  ;  but  I  presume,  and  the  books 
recommend,  that  the  court  so  advise  the  jury  that  it  is  not  safe  for  them  to  convict  a 
citizen  of  crime  upon  the  exclusive  evidence  of  a  party  who  was  an  accomplice  with  the 
others,  equal  in  guilt  with  them.  And  we  accept  that,  and  we  say  to  you  that  unless 
Edson  shall  have  been,  and  has  been,  corroborated  in  various  and  important  particulars, 
we  do  not  ask  you  to  convict  these  men  solely  upon  his  testimony.  But  it  is  no  reply  to 
evidence,  and  certainly  it  is  no  reply  to  truth,  to  say  that  it  comes  from  the  lips  of  a  thief. 
The  object  of  a  judicial  investigation  and  a  judicial  trial  is  the  discovery  of  the  truth, 
and  nothing  else,  come  from  what  source  it  may.  Truth,  Mr.  Foreman,  is  not  soiled  by 
the  medium  that  it  passes  through,  any  more  than  a  ray  of  sunlight  is  soiled  because  it 
plays  upon  the  hand  of  a  murderer.  Money  is  not  counterfeit — I  think  the  learned  coun¬ 
sel  who  took  the  cars  this  morning,  will  not  say  the  *1500  which  he  received,  if  he  did 
receive  it,  is  any  the  less  genuine  because  it  comes  from  the  pockets  that  were  lined  with 
the  plunder  of  that  bank.  (Sensation.)  Truth  is  truth,  no  matter  what  source  it  comes 
from,  and  it  is  not  necessary  in  judicial  investigations — and  the  only  way  and  the  chief 
way  in  which  criminals  and  villains  are  detected,  is  in  the  fact  that  some  one  of  them  is 
false  ;  and  it  is  upon  the  bad  passions  and  falsity  of  men  that  courts  are  obliged  to  rely. 
There  is  nothing  so  sacred  about  a  judicial  tribunal  that  the  evidence  that  is  to  control 
investigations  must  be  brought  from  the  lips  of  vestal  virgins.  Why,  even  Divinity  makes 
the  wrath  of  man  to  praise  Him.  (Profound  sensation.)  Now  I  pass  no  eulogy  upon 
Mr.  Edson.  I  have  nothing  to  say  in  his  favor.  I  do  not  ask  whether  you  shall  heap 
obloquy  or  compliments  upon  him  for  the  part  he  has  taken  in  this  case  ;  but  I  do  claim, 
Mr.  foreman  and  gentleman,  that  in  the  narrative  that  he  gave  us  yesterday  and  to-day, 
lie  told  the  truth.  What  are  some  of  the  tests  of  truth  ?  What  are  some  of  the  tests 
that  we  apply  when  we  want  to  ascertain  whether  a  man  is  telling  the  truth  or  not  ?  One 
test  is  perhaps  his  appearance  on  the  stand.  Was  there  anything  in  his  appearance  that 
indicated  that  there  was  anything  that  he  withheld,  even  though  it  smooched  him  with 
infamy  ?  On  the  contrary,  was  not  the  fact  during  the  whole  of  his  testimony  apparent 
to  you,  that  in  all  that  he  said  lie  was  answering  from  his  memory,  and  nothing  else  ? 
No  feeling  afterwards,  no  hesitation  about  the  facts,  an  immediate  response  to  every  ques¬ 
tion  that  was  given  him,  and  that  too,  extending  over  a  multiplicity  of  facts,  comprising 
the  whole  period  since  1872,  down  to  to-day,  so  that  there  was  a  complexity  and  a  multi¬ 
plicity  of  facts  which  made  it  impossible  for  him  to  have  fabricated  the  story.  If  he  had 
fabricated  the  st-ory,  Mr.  Foreman  and  gentlemen,  he  would  have  narrowed  that  story  to 
the  immediate  circle  of  the  facts  of  this  case;  he  would  simply  have  told  you  that  they 
confessed  to  him  certain  facts,  and  he  would  have  confined  himself  to  a  certain  line  of 
lacts  which  were  immediate  and  which  were  few,  and  which  were  incapable  of  a  contra¬ 
diction.  On  the  contrary,  he  spread  out  to  you  the  map  of  his  life,  and  the  whole  history 
of  his  acquaintance  with  these  men. 

Now  wiiat  is  his  story,  according  to  the  evidence  ?  First,  what  was  his  story  ?  Second, 


TRIAL  OR  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


15 


what  are  its  corroborations  ?  I  don’t  propose  to  go  back  further  than  this  to  show  that, 
according  to  his  statement,  at  some  time  before  the  robbery  of  the  bank  in  Northampton, 
there  was  a  concerted  plan  between  him  and  Scott  and  Dunlap  and  Connors,  that  they 
should  be  equal  actors  and  equal  sharers  of  plunder  in  the  robbery  of  any  weak  bank 
which  any  or  either  of  the  parties  should  discover  and  report  to  the  others.  It  was  also 
arranged  that  Connors,  whom  we  have  not  seen,  but  of  whom  we  have  heard,  was  to  be 
the  negotiator,  rather,  of  the  securities  and  of  the  plunder  that  should  be  obtained.  Now 
we  find  that  in  July,  1875,  according  to  Edson,  Scott  and  Dunlap  requested  him  to  go  to 
Bloomsburg  and  Plymouth  and  Wilkesbarre,  in  order  to  investigate  the  condition  of  cer¬ 
tain  banks,  which  they  had  pitched  upon  as  suitable  candidates  for  robbery.  The  week 
after  that  Edson  says  he  went  to  Northampton,  to  examine  some  vault  doors.  He  went 
directly  from  Northampton  to  Bloomsburg  and  Wilkesbarre  and  Plymouth,  made  exami¬ 
nations  of  the  banks  there,  and  from  thence  went  to  New  York.  And  when  at  New 
York,  he  met  Connors  and  Dunlap  and  Scott,  and  he  reported  to  them  the  condition  of 
the  bank  at  Northampton.  They  wanted  him  to  go  up  again  and  examine  the  bank  and 
report  to  them  at  the  Wyoming  Valley  House,  at  Wilkesbarre,  Penn.  ;  and  he  says  further, 
the  arrangement  was,  “  that  if,  for  any  reason,  I  could  not  return  to  confer  with  them 
and  to  report  to  them  at  Wilkesbarre,  during  that  week,  I  was  to  telegraph,  and  I  was  to 
telegraph  to  Dunlap  under  the  name  of  R.  C.  Hill.”  He  said  that  he  went  to  North¬ 
ampton,  was  detained  longer  than  he  expected,  and  that  he  telegraphed  to  R.  C.  Hill,  at 
the  Wyoming  Valley  House,  Wilkesbarre,  Penn.,  that  he  had  been  detained,  and,  if 
important,  that  he  could  go  on  Friday  of  the  next  week,  and  to  telegraph  to  him,  if  they 
wanted  him  on  Friday,  and  that  he  subscribed  his  telegram  with  the  name  :  “William 
L.  Edwards.” 

What  next  ?  August  the  5th,  he  left  Northampton  and  went  to  New  York,  and  ou 
arrival  at  his  home  he  found  a  telegram  from  R.  C.  Hill,  dated  August  5,  asking  him  to 
come  to  Wilkesbarre.  He  says  that  on  Friday,  August  6,  he  left  New  York,  went  to 
Wilkesbarre,  went  to  the  Wyoming  Valley  House,  and  there  found  upon  the  register  of 
the  hotel  the  name  of  R.  C.  Hill,  assigned  to  room  number  27.  That  the  next  morning 
he  went  to  that  room,  and  opened  the  door  upon  Dunlap,  and  that  during  the  day  Scott 
met  him  there,  and  that  there  he  recited  to  Scott  and  Dunlap  the  fact  that  the  dials  of 
the  bank  at  Northampton  were  such  as  to  make  it  a  possible  field  for  their  enterprise. 

August  the  7th — and  that  was  Saturday,  August  the  7th — on  Saturday,  Scott  and  Dun¬ 
lap  and  Edson  leave  Wilkesbarre  and  go  to  New  York.  Then  he  says  that  during  the 
next  week  Scott  and  Dunlap  and  Conners  visit  Northampton,  and  that  their  visits  were 
kept  up  from  time  to  time  through  that  week,  beginning  with  August  9,  for  some  days. 
They  were  about  ready  for  operation  when,  for  some  reason,  a  man  by  the  name  of  Joseph 
Locke  reported  to  the  officers  of  the  bank  that  the  dials  were  unsafe.  Edson  goes  to 
Northampton,  sees  the  dials,  examines  them,  goes  back  and  reports  to  Scott  and  Dunlap 
and  Conners,  and  they  conclude  that,  inasmuch  as  suspicion  has  been  excited  by  the 
report  of  Locke,  they  will  not  at  that  time  make  the  attempt.  But  they  also  stated  that, 
while  they  were  here,  they  noticed  this  fact,  that  the  watchman  of  the  Northampton 
bank  left  his  post  of  duty  at  4  o’clock  in  the  morning.  And  then,  after  that,  I  believe, 
new  dials  were  made,  and  Scott  and  Dunlap  informed  Edson  that  if  he  can  secure  for 
them  the  keys  to  this  Northampton  bank,  they  can  make  an  entrance.  Accordingly,  and 
you  remember  the  fact,  Edson  goes  to  Northampton.  What  does  he  do  ?  He  examines 
the  lock  and  the  keys,  and,  he  says,  that  either  Mr.  Edwards  or  Mr.  Whittelsey,  I  think 
Mr.  Edwards,  asked  him  to  cake  those  keys  and  reduce  their  size,  so  that  they  would 
operate  more  easily.  He  says  he  took  the  keys  and  went  to  New  York  with  them, — they 
have  two  sets,  of  course, — he  taking,  first,  one  set,  went  to  New  York,  put  them  into 
the  hands  of  Scott.  Scott  makes  duplicates  of  them,  and,  having  made  duplicates  of 
them,  brings  them  to  him,  and  he  and  Scott,  in  Edson’s  room,  operate  the  keys  upon 
similar  dials,  and  are  of  opinion  that  they  have  got  the  clue  to  the  bank.  We  find  that 
fact.  You  are  to  notice  how  far  any  of  these  facts  are  corroborated. 

I  may  have  confounded  the  testimony  a  little,  and  if  I  do  I  hope  I  will  be  corrected, 
for  I  have  not  looked  at  it  since  I  took  it  down.  It  was  November  22.  I  presume  your 
own  infirmity  of  memory,  in  reference  to  some  of  these  dates,  will  excuse  me,  if  I  am 
incorrect  in  some  of  them. 

But  we  find,  according  to  Edson,  that  sometime  in  November  he  goes  up  there  and 
takes  the  keys  from  Warriner  into  a  back  room, — and  there  is  where  I  was  confounded, — 


16 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


takes  the  keys  from  Warriner  into  a  back  room,  into  the  directors’  room  of  the  bank,  and 
there,  he  says,  he  made  impressions  of  these  keys  upon  wax,  which  Dunlap  furnished 
him,— Scott  or  Dunlap, — which  was  furnished  him  by  one  of  the  defendants.  And  then 
these  impressions  were  taken  to  New  \  ork,  and  new  keys  made;  and  these  new  keys  that 
were  made  were  experimented  with  bv  Scott  and  Dunlap  and  Edson.  Ihen  they  went 
on  and  commenced  their  operations.  They  were  ready  to  break  the  bank  a  little  earlier 
than  the  actual  burglary,  but  were  interrupted. 

On  the  Sunday  night  previous  to  the  robbery,  Edson  says  that  he  had  a  conversation 
with  Dunlap  and  that  it  was  arranged,  or  about  that  time,  at  all  events,  it  was  arranged, 
that  they  should  go  up  there  on  the  week  in  which  the  26th  occurred,  and  break  open  the 
bank.  They  went,  and  the  bank  was  broken  open.  The  next  day,  in  the  afternoon  of 
the  twenty-sixth,  Edson  was  summoned  by  Herring  &  Co.,  to  go  to  Northampton.  He 
went  there,  and  found  the  condition  of  things  as  has  been  described;  stayed  there  a 
couple  of  days,  went  back  to  New  York,  there  had  an  interview  with  Dunlap  and  Scott; 
and  the  interview  occurred  in  this  way:  You  will  find  that  Mr.  Edson  says  that  Saturday 
uio-ht  he  put  into  a  newspaper,  the  New  York  Herald,  a  notice  of  this  sort:  “  Idalia, 
Monday  eve  ;”  and  he  found  in  the  personals  of  the  New  York  Herald  a  notice  of  this 
sort:  “Idalia,  Monday  evening,  eight  sharp,”  which  meant:  meet  me  at  the  corner  of 
Broadway  and  54th  street.  He  says  he  also  put  a  personal  himself  into  the  New  York 
Herald,  of  this  sort:  “Idalia,  F.  N.:  meet  me  on  the  avenue  Sunday  evening  at  eight 
o’clock.’  If  impossible,  Monday  evening.”  The  Herald  newspapers  have  been  presented 
containing  precisely  these  notices:  “Idalia,  F.  N.,  Monday  evening.”  “Idalia,  F.  N., 
meet  me  on  the  avenue  Sunday  evening  at  eight  o’clock.  If  impossible,  on  Monday.” 
The  meeting  was  on  Monday.  He  says  at  that  time  he  met  Conners,  and  afterwards  met 
Dunlap  and  Scott ;  talked  with  them  about  the  transaction.  Asked  them  how  it  was  that 
they  took  Whittelsey’s  watch.  They  said  it  was  a  mistake.  They  told  him  the  whole 
history  of  the  affair;  told  him  they  went  to  Northampton,  how  they  broke  in,  that  they 
broke  in  with  sledges,  that  Dunlap  and  Scott  got  from  Whittelsey  the  numbers  of  the 
combination,  went  to  the  bank,  robbed  it,  went  home  ;  that  Mrs.  Whittelsey  was  the 
smartest  and  coolest  of  the  lot,  and  described  variously  the  incidents  of  the  occasion. 
And  he  on  his  part  described  to  them  what  he  had  seen  the  next  day. 

After  a  while  we  find  that  Mr.  Williams  and  Mr.  Edwards,  two  of  the  officers  of  the 
bank,  go  to  New  York.  They  go  to  Herring’s,  and  they  have  a  meeting  with  Edson. 
Edson  not  only  has  a  meeting  with  them  there,  but  he  meets  Williams  at  the  Fifth  Ave¬ 
nue  Hotel,  meets  him  the  uext  morning,  and,  as  the  result  of  that  interview,  he  sees  one 
of  the  parties  and  he  tells  him, — it  is  Dunlap,  I  think, — that  he  thought  the  parties 
wished  to  have  the  whole  affair  compromised.  This  was  February  9.  Then  he  says  that 
about  February  13  or  15,  he  saw  Scott  and  Dunlap,  and  drove  with  them  two  hours,  and 
told  them  that  he  thought  the  matter  could  be  compromised,  and  they  said  that  they 
wanted  him  to  see  an  officer  of  the  bank.  He  telegraphed  to  Williams  and  Edwards  to 
meet  him,  and  they  came  down.  In  the  meantime,  however,  he  sees  Connors,  has  a  con¬ 
versation  with  Connors,  who  says  to  him  that  Dunlap  and  Scott  have  already  gone  up  to 
Northampton  in  order  to  bring  back  the  plunder.  Connors  tells  him  that  Scott  has 
already  gone  to  Northampton  to  bring  back  the  plunder.  Edson  at  once  became  alarmed 
himseif,  and  he  excites  the  alarm  of  Connors  by  telling  him  that  the  bank  is  upon  the 
alert,  and  that  it  is  not  safe  for  them  to  bring  back  the  plunder  at  that  time;  and  we  find 
that,  as  a  result,  a  communication  was  put  in  the  New  York  Herald,  “Knox,  come 
home,”  and  that  was  explained  to  us.  “  Knox  came  home.”  And  we  find  that  in  the 
Herald,  as  he  says  it  was.  They  did  come  home,  aud  after  that  he  has  further  conversa¬ 
tion  with  them,  about  the  16th,  and  then  his  conversation  is  with  Scott.  Scott  told  him 
what  had  been  done,  and  they  had  come  back.  Then  he  talked  with  them  about  com¬ 
promising.  Scott  takes  out  his  watch,  and  says,  “I  won’t  string  you  any  longer;  they 
are  just  about  laying  their  hands  on  the  stuff  now.”  From  that  time  afterward  we  find 
that  there  was,  on  the  part  of  Edson,  no  advance  in  the  way  of  negotiations. 

Now,  I  ask  you,  if,  taking  this  story  together,  it  is  not  a  true  story,  and  if  it  does  not 
bear  upon  its  face  the  stamp  aud  impress  of  truth  ?  Taken  by  itself  alone,  does 
it  not  bear  internal  evidence  of  truth  ?  Would  such  a  story  as  that  have  been  fabri¬ 
cated  ?  If  it  had  been  untrue,  would  such  a  story  have  been  attempted  to  be  fabricated, 
if  a  false  story  was  to  be  made  ?  Would  there  have  been  so  many  details  ?  Wouldn't  it 
have  been  simple  ?  Wouldn’t  it  have  been  something  within  his  own  reach  ?  Why 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANE  ROBBERS. 


17 


should  he'have  stated  that  very  first  conversation;,  in  reference  to  this  matter,  as  to  the 
condition  of  the  Northampton  Bank,  and  the  interview  at  Wilkesbarre  ?  The  important 
question  arises  here,  gentlemen,  were  Edson,  Scott  and  Dunlap  at  Wilkesbarre,  for  any 
purpose,  about  the  5th,  6th,  or  7th  of  August  ?  Were  they  there  ?  Edson  says  they 
were  there,  and  that  they  discussed  the  question  of  the  Northampton  bank  robbery  there. 
Were  they  there  together  ?  If  Edson  is  a  scoundrel  and  a  rascal,  if  he  has  had  something 
to  do  with  this  whole  series  of  robberies  for  years,  in  and  out,  and  we  find  him  consorting 
with  anybody  for  any  purpose,  the  probability  is,  and  the  presumption  is,  that  it  was  for 
a  bad  purpose,  and  for  a  wicked  purpose  ;  and  if  we  find  him  and  Scott  and  Dunlap  there 
together  by  appointment,  then  we  believe  that  it  was  for  a  wrong  purpose  ;  and  if  we  find 
them  there,  by  appointment,  under  fictitious  names,  and  in  suspicious  ways  and  methods, 
then,  too,  we  say  that  their  object  was  an  unlawful  one. 

Were  they  there  ?  Were  they  there  by  appointment  ?  Was  Edson  there  by  appoint¬ 
ment,  and  was  he  there  by  appointment  with  these  men  ?  We  go  to  the  journal  of  the 
Wyoming  Valley  House  at  Wilkesbarre,  and  we  find  upon  the  journal  of  that  house,  the 
signature,  “R.  C.  Hill.”  And  perhaps  you  will  ask,  “R.  C.  ?”  The  same  letters  that 
one  of  the  parties  had  for  his  initials.  We  also  find  upon  the  book,  after  the  signature  of 
R.  C.  Hill,  we  find  Edson’s  name  inscribed.  Was  he  there  in  consequence  of  a  telegram  ? 
We  have  called  the  telegraph  operator,  we  have  called  the  clerk  of  the  hotel,  and  we  find 
this,  that  on  the  fifth  day  of  August,  1875,  the  following  telegram  was  sent  :  “  To  W. 

L.  Edwards,  241  West  52d  street,  New  York.  Come  to-morrow.  R.  C.  Hill.”  This  is 
the  original  telegram.  We  turn  from  the  original  telegram,  and  we  find  the  name  of  R. 
C.  Hill  upon  the  books,  and  if  we  find  that  both  signatures  are  made  by  the  same  hand, 
and  we  find,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Edson,  and  you  can  compare  this  and  compare 
the  others,  that  that  was  a  telegram  sent  by  Dunlap.  We  find  also  that  the  other  men 
were  there,  that  there  was  a  person  there,  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  clerk  of  the 
hotel,  he  does  not  recall  the  person,  to  say  that  he  was  there,  but  he  does  say  that  some¬ 
where  and  on  some  occasion-  he  has  seen  one  of  the  defendants.  Is  he  corroborated  in  any 
of  these  particulars  in  reference  to  this  transaction  ?  We  find,  according  to  his  own  story, 
that  they  told  him,  if  he  could  get  the  keys  to  the  Northampton  bank,  they  could  open 
it,  that  they  had  discovered  that  the  watchmen  left  at  4  o’clock,  as  he  did.  What  was 
done  next  ?  We  find  that  Edson  went  to  Northampton,  and  according  to  Mr.  Edwards 
or  Mr.  Whittelsey,  Mr.  Whittelsey  I  believe,  no  matter  which — Edson  went  there,  took 
the  keys  of  the  bank  and  made  impressions  of  them  in  wax  ;  and  carried  these  impressions 
to  New  York.  Mr.  Warriner  says  he  went  into  the  directors’  room  with  the  keys.  Edson 
says  he  took  the  keys  from  Warriner,  that  he  went  into  the  directors’  room,  and  that 
there,  he  made  impressions  of  the  keys  in  wax,  and  that  he  took  them  to  New  York  and 
new  keys  were  made.  The  wax  furnished  as  he  said  by  Scott.  He  took  the  keys,  made 
impressions,  went  to  New  York,  made  new  keys,  tried  them,  and  found  that  they  worked. 
Now,  is  that  story  true  ?  Is  it  confirmed  by  anybody  ?  Confirmed  by  Warriner,  who 
said  that  he  gave  him  the  keys,  and  that  he  went  into  the  other  room.  Confirmed 
triumphantly  by  this  fact,  that  when  the  bank  was  broken  open,  it  was  broken  open  by 
somebody  who  had  the  keys  from  some  source.  None  of  them  got  any  keys  from  Mr. 
Warriner,  none  of  them  got  them  from  Whittelsey,  none  of  them  got  any  keys  from  any 
bank  officer  ;  but  they  went  to  Whittelsey,  got  the  combination,  and  then  they  were  fur¬ 
nished  somehow,  somewhere,  and  by  somebody,  with  all  that  was  necessary  to  break  open 
that  bank.  Now,  I  tell  you,  Mr.  Foreman,  and  gentlemen,  that  fact  alone,  of  itself  and 
in  itself,  without  anything  else,  puts  an  end  to  this  case  forever. 

But  another  thing.  How  happened  they  to  know,  bow  happened  they  to  take,  the  risk 
of  attempting  to  break  into  that  bank  after  confining  in  his  house  only  the  cashier,  if  not 
knowing  that  he  was  the  sole  depositary,  or  that  he  was  the  depositary,  of  all  the  com¬ 
binations  ?  Because  you  all  of  you  know  enough  about  banks  to  know  that  generally 
these  facts  as  to  the  combinations  are  distributed  between  different  officers  or  clerks  of  the 
bank,  so  that  no  one  person  shall  be  able  to  surrender  the  whole .  So  it  had  been  in  this 
bank.  But  Edson  says,  that  when  he  was  up  there  on  one  occasion,  talking  with 
Warriner,  he  suggested  to  him  that  he  had  ascertained  that  one  of  the  clerks  of  this  bank 
had  some  combinations  of  the  vault,  and  that  he  ought  not  to  be  in  possession  of  so  im- 
porant  a  secret.  Mr.  Warriner  admitted  the  wisdom  of  this  suggestion,  and  said  to  him  : 
we  will  change  the  combination,  and  we  will  put  the  combination  of 
the  vault  door, — Mr.  Whittelsey  having  all  the  other  combinations 


18 


TRIAL  OP  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


before  that — we  will  put  the  combinations  of  the  vault  door  into  the  hands 
of  Mr.  Whittelsey  and  take  them  away  from  the  clerk.  Edson  says  he  did  that,  and 
Warrinersays  that  that  was  precisely  what  he  did.  Warriner  says  that  when  Edson  was 
there,  he  did  tell  him  that  the  secret  ought  not  to  be  in  the  possession  of  a  young 
clerk,  and  should  be  differently  distributed,  and  in  consequence  of  that,  he  distributed  it, 
and  placed  it  in  the  hands  of  Whittelsey,  and  afterwards  told  Edson,  at  the  supper  table, 
that  he  had  done  so.  And  Edson  says,  that  thereupon  he  went  to  Scott  and  Dunlap,  and 
told  them  that  Whittslsey  had  the  secrets  of  the  combination,  and  that  all  that  was  neces¬ 
sary  to  be  done  was  to  go  to  Whittelsey.  And  whoever  did  go,  and  whoever  did  break 
into  that  bank,  somehow  and  by  some  means,  had  become  possessed  of  the  knowledge  that 
all  that  was  necessary  to  be  done  was  to  secure  the  combinations  from  Whittelsey. 

Another  and  very  important  corroboration  !  Again  !  Edson  tells  us  that  he  ascer¬ 
tained  that  these  parties  had  gone  to  Springfield.  He  also  tells  us  that  they  were  sent  for 
to  come  home,  and  he  tells  us  when  it  was.  Were  these  parties  at  Springfield  ?  We  go 
to  the  Rockingham  House  and  we  find  that  Scott  and  another  man  with  a  pair  of  horses — 
and  in  reference  to  horses,  you  will  remember  that  Edson  told  you  that  they  informed 
him  that  they  had  expended  about  eight  or  nine  hundred  dollars  of  the  money  which  was 
stolen  here  at  Northampton  in  buying  a  team  in  order  to  go  to  Northampton  to  bring 
back  the  plunder — and  we  prove  by  a  witness  from  the  Rockingham  House  that  Scott  and 
another  party  at  that  time  came  there  for  the  night  and  left  the  next  day,  and  that  the 
next  day  some  other  man,  with  broad  shoulders,  came  there  and  inquired  for  these  two 
men.  Is  Edson  confirmed  in  that  ? 

Now  I  say,  take  these,  and  simply  these,  corroborations  of  Edson,  outside  of  anything 
that  occurred  at  Northampton,  and  there  is  but  one  conclusion  as  to  the  guilt  of  these 
defendants.  So  far,  taking  Edson’s  testimony  alone,  uncorroborated  and  unconfirmed  by 
anything  that  happened  at  Northampton  upon  the  occasion  of  the  robbery. 

Now,  let  us  look  at  another  branch  of  the  case  and  see  if  the  evidence  is  not  as  perfect 
and  as  conclusive  from  that  point  of  the  case.  Were  these  the  persons  that  broke  into 
that  bank  from  evidence  derived  from  other  parties  than  Edson  ?  They  were  here,  and 
they  were  here  for  some  purpose.  They  were  in  this  vicinity.  In  the  first  place,  we  find 
that  on  that  very  week,  Mr.  Holt,  the  paymaster  of  the  Boston  and  Albany  Railroad,  saw 
Scott  and  Dunlap  iii  Springfield.  On  the  morning  of  Monday,  he  says  he  went  to  open 
his  office  doors,  and  there  he  saw  these  men  coming  across  the  street  from  toward  the 
Cooley  House.  He  says  in  a  little  while  after  that,  about  half  an  hour,  he  says  then  they 
came  within  ten  feet  of  him.  In  a  little  while  after  that  he  saw  them  again,  coming  out 
from  the  depot  building.  A  little  while  after  that  he  saw  them  going  down  a  street  at 
right  angles  with  Main  street,  and  there  he  saw  them  meet  three  men,  and  have  conver¬ 
sation  with  them.  So  there  we  have  these  five  meu  there  together;  and  there  were  five 
men  in  that  house.  We  find  that  he  meets  them  that  day  ;  we  find  that  he  meets  them 
the  next  day.  He  tracks  them  from  one  point  to  another.  He  watches  them.  He  calls 
the  attention  of  other  parties  to  them,  and  he  swears  that  these  are  the  men  that  he  saw 
in  Springfield  Monday  and  Tuesday.  And,  gentlemen,  this  testimony  of  Mr.  Holt  is  no 
ordinary  testimony.  Mr.  Holt’s  business  is  that  of  paymaster,  paymaster  of  the  Boston 
and  Albany  x-oad.  He  is  the  paymaster  of  that  army  of  5000  men  "that  are  in  the  employ 
of  the  Boston  and  Albany  Railroad.  He  is  the  depositor  and  the  distributor  of  their 
money.  He  is  obliged,  as  you  will  infer,  as  a  matter  of  course,  to  take  this  money  and 
carry  it  from  point  to  point  over  the  road  to  pay  it  out.  Just  the  candidate  for  thieves 
and  pickpockets.  He  has  been  in  that  business  for  eighteen  years.  His  sensibilities  have 
become  quick,  his  eye  keen,  all  his  senses  alert.  He  knows  how  to  mark  a  pickpocket. 
He  knows  when  a  suspicious  person  comes  across  his  vision,  and  when  he  saw  these  men 
they  attracted  his  attention,  and  he  shadowed  them  from  one  point  to  another  poiut,  in 
the  city  of  Springfield,  for  two  days.  He  daguerreotyped  their  faces  and  their  figures  on 
the  retina  of  his  eye,  and  he  tells  you  it  is  there  now,  and  he  looks  upon  them,  and  he 
says,  i'hese  are  the  men.”  (Sensation.)  This  is  the  Monday  and  the  Tuesday  before 
the  robbery.  These  were  the  men  and  in  association  with  just  the  numerical  clan  that 
broke  into  that  house  and  became  participators  in  that  business.  Have  you  any  doubt 
about  that  ? 

Another  thing.  We  called  two  witnesses  from  Northampton,  both  of  whom  testify 
that  along  at  different  times,  previous  to  the  robbery,  they  had  seen  one  or  both  of  these 
meu  in  the  vicinity  of  Whittelsey’s  house.  Now,  that  these  men  had  been  prowling 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


19 


around  Northampton  for  weeks,  at  least,  there  can  be  no  question.  That  they  had  made 
their  rendezvous  up  here  in  a  secluded  school-house,  and  that  they  were  persons,  burg¬ 
lars — at  least,  they  were  no  tramps.  Tramps  would  never  have  left  an  unconsumed 
chicken  there,  certainly.  (Laughter.)  We  find  that  these  burglars  had  been  prowling 
about  this  town  for  a  long  time — for  a  number  of  days,  at  the  least.  One  witness,  whose 
name  I  don’t  recall, — however,  that  is  of  no  account, — one  witness  testifies  that  he  saw 
him  up  at  Mr.  Whittelsey’s  house  ;  that  he  had  conversation  with  him.  He  remembers 
that  he  had  conversation  with  him,  and  that  he  asked  him  where  Mr.  Whittelsey's  house 
was.  To  be  sure,  he  knew  where  Whittelsey’s  house  was  before,  but  he  was  caught  there 
in  rather  suspicious  circumstances,  and  he  made  that  as  an  excuse  for  his  standing  there  ; 
or  it  was  for  another  purpose — for  the  additional  information  which  he  got.  Yoxr  will 
believe  that  he  not  only  asked  him  where  Whittelsey’s  house  was,  but  what  is  more  here, 
because  the  witness  testifies  that — and  of  course  it  was  in  response  to  a  question,  though 
I  don’t  think  he  was  asked  in  regard  to  it — but  the  witness  testifies  that  he  told  him  what 
Mr.  Whittelsey’s  family  was,  and  told  him  also  that  there  was  another  family  in  the 
house ;  and  you  will  believe  that  that  was  a  part  of  the  investigation  that  he  was  pursu¬ 
ing  at  that  time,  and  that  was  a  part  of  the  information  that  he  wished  to  secure. 
Another  witness  met  him  twice.  But  you  will  remember  these  circumstances.  So  we 
find  that  the  men  were  about  here  before  the  26th,  for  some  purpose. 

Now,  were  these  the  men  that  went  into  that  house  ?  We  have  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Whittelsey,  we  have  the  testimony  of  Mrs.  Whittelsey,  we  have  the  testimony  of  Mrs. 
Page,  that  they  were  the  men.  I  look  upon  the  identity  of  these  men,  as  secured  by 
these  witnesses,  with  entire  confidence.  Mr.  Whittelsey  says  that  he  identifies  these  men 
by  their  voices,— Scott,  certainly.  He  remembers  what  they  said.  He  goes  over  with 
the  conversation.  Mrs.  Whittelsey  identifies  them  by  the  voice,  also,  as  well  as  in  other 
particulars.  Mrs.  Page  recollects  the  voice.  But  the  questions  were  asked  :  “  Wern’t 
you  very  much  excited  ?  Wexn’t  you  frightened  ?  Wern’t  you  intimidated  ?”  They  say 
that  they  were  more  or  less  excited,  and,  of  course,  they  were  ;  and  it  is  for  just  this  rea¬ 
son,  Mr.  Foreman,  that  they  are  confident.  It  is  because  the  faculties  were  in  a  state  of 
intellectual  excitement,  that  they  were  able,  at  this  time,  to  remember  the  tones  of  the 
voice.  It  is  nothing  unusual.  Why,  it  is  the  way  with  all  our  senses — the  sort  of  sense 
which  the  trapper  and  the  hunter  gets  by  slow  processes,  so  that  the  least  sound  of  a 
voice,  the  least  trail  in  the  grass,  is  to  him  an  open  volume.  To  a  man  or  a  woman, 
whose  mind  is  intensely  excited,  the  same  effects  come  in  upon  them  as  by  intuition.  It 
is  when  we  are  under  great  excitement  that  effects  of  voice,  of  sound,  of  sight,  are  im¬ 
printed  upon  us,  as  at  no  other  time.  In  one  of  the  law  books,  there  is  a  case  where  a 
woman,  at  night,  at  midnight,  sees  a  man  thrust  his  head  out  of  a  coach,  and  hears  him 
tell  the  driver  to  drive  to  such  a  number,  and  that  is  all.  And  a  murder  is  committed 
there,  and  out  of  fifty  persons,  at  Newgate,  she  was  able  to  identify  that  voice,  simply 
because  her  mind  was  excited,  simply  because  it  was  intense.  So  it  is  in  reference  to  the 
vision.  Why,  the  books  have  another  case,  where  two  Bow-street  officers  were  in  the  post- 
chaise,  and  they  were  attacked  by  two  men  on  horseback,  and,  after  there  had  been  a 
demand  for  money,  a  pistol  was  fired,  and  the  party,  out  of  seventy-five  horses,  was  able 
to  distinguish  the  horse  upon  which  that  rider  rode,  simply  by  the  flash  of  the  light 
from  the  powder.  Frightened!  Excited!  Did  you  ever  ride  after  a  runaway  horse?  If 
you  did,  you  may  recollect,  I  fancy,  although  it  was  not,  perhaps,  a  very  eligible  post  for 
accurate  observation,  that  there  were  one,  two,  or  three,  particular  facts  which  flashed 
themselves  upon  your  mind,  and  you  saw  it  forevermore,  as  if  it  had  burned  there  through 
a  flash  of  lightning.  It  is  because  the  mind  is  excited  that  it  takes  in  facts.  Gentlemen, 
by  and  by,  when  you  shall  come  in  with  your  verdict,  my  impression  is  that,  unless  the 
sensibilities  of  these  men  have  been  so  deadened  and  obliterated  by  crime  that  there  is 
nothing  left,  there  will  be  one  word,  and  the  intonation  of  one  voice,  that  they  never  will 
forget.  So,  in  reference  to  your  child ;  in  reference  to  your  friends.  Can  any  of  you 
remember  the  last  smile  of  a  dying  child?  I  hope  you  cannot.  But,  though  it  was  as 
evanescent  as  the  vision,  if  you  caught  that  picture,  it  hangs  upon  the  walls  of  your  mem¬ 
ory  as  distinct  to-day  as  though  it  was  printed  on  the  sky  in  sunbeams.  The  mind  is 
ready  to  receive  impressions.  And  when  these  women  and  that  man  found  themselves 
surrounded  by  masked  burglars, — women  not  knowing  what  was  to  become  of  the  hus¬ 
band,  husband  not  knowing  what  was  to  become  of  the  trust  that  was  reposed  in  him, — 
think  you  that  there  was  any  movement,  or  voice,  or  language,  that  did  not  sink  and 


20 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


scintillate  in  their  memories,  and  is  not  there  now?  And  they  went  there  in  an  instant. 
Impressions  don’t  soak  into  the  mind  gradually,  but  they  are  imprinted  there  instantane¬ 
ously.  And  that  is  the  reason  why,  in  an  intense  excitement  of  mind,  Mr.  Foreman,  you 
can  learn  more  in  five  minutes,' and  commit  more  to  memory  in  five  minutes,  under 
pressure,  than  you  could  at  other  times  in  as  many  hours.  That  is  the  secret  of  this  con¬ 
fidence  on  the  part  of  these  persons,  and  I  trust  in  it. 

But  they  are  not  without  confirmation.  There  are  a  variety  of  confirmatory  facts, 
both  for  them  and  for  Edson.  And  here,  perhaps,  I  may  allude  to  a  little  fact,  only  an 
incidental  fact,  and  that  was  that,  on  one  occasion,  at  one  time,  Edson  says  that  one  of 
the  parties  told  him  that,  whilst  they  were  out  in  Whittelsey’s  yard,  behind  some  shrub¬ 
bery,  in  the  dark,  that,  whilst  there,  some  member  of  the  family  was  out  at  the  gate, 
and  suddenly  the  moon  burst  out  of  the  clouds,  and  there  they  were,  and  they  were 
obliged  to  lie  there,  undergoing  some  disagreeable  torture.  Well,  we  find  that  fact.  And 
Mrs.  Whittelsey  tells  you  that,  on  one  occasion,  at  about  that  time,  in  the  same  month, 
she  went  out  into  the  yard,  and  there  she  found  prints  of  persons,  who  had  been  conceal¬ 
ing  themselves  behind  those  bushes.  You  find  that  those  persons  in  the  house  are  cor¬ 
roborated,  as  I  have  said,  in  various  other  ways  ;  and  I  cannot  but  refer,  because  it  has 
been  suggested  to  me, — and  I  know  that  there  are  a  great  many  things  that  yet  remain, 
and  a  great  many  more  have  occurred  to  me  than  I  supposed  there  would.  You  will 
remember  that  they  found  in  the  house  some  masks,  and  they  also  found  some  overalls. 
Now,  we  find  that  Hall,  of  the  firm  of  Hall  &  Prew,  sold  the  identical  drawers  from 
which  the  mask  was  made  ;  and,  although  Hall  does  not  identify  these  men  as  being  the 
men  that  he  recalls  to  have  bought  the  articles,  he  does  remember  that  he  had  seen  these 
persons  in  his  store.  And  you  recollect  other  things  :  that  the  defendants  must  have 
come  from  New  Ybrk,  from  the  paper,  from  the  flask,  from  the  paper  bag,  and  from  all 
and  a  great  variety  of  facts  and  statements  that  have  been  made,  little  and  large. 

And,  gentlemen,  when  you  are  looking  for  corroborating  circumstances,  you  are  not  to 
look  for  large  facts.  Minute  facts  tend  as  strongly  as  facts  of  more  magnitude,  to  cor¬ 
roborate  all  main  and  leading  statements.  Not  in  the  single  corroboration,  but  in  the 
variety  of  them,  and  in  the  multiplicity  of  them — coming  from  all  sources.  It  is  not  one, 
alone.  To  be  sure,  this  matter  of  the  drawers  is  a  small  thing,  and  the  matter  of  the 
paper-bag  is  a  small  thing.  The  mere  fact  that  Crafts  met  these  men,  on  one  occasion, 
in  that  vicinity,  of  itself  is  not  conclusive.  The  mere  fact  that  Mantor,  if  that  is  his 
name,  met  these  men,  on  two  other  occasions,  is  not  conclusive.  The  mere  fact  that  these 
men  were  at  Springfield,  on  one  occasion,  is  not  conclusive.  The  fact  that  Holt  saw  them 
there,  on  one,  two,  or  three  occasions,  is  not  conclusive,  but  it  is  the  accumulation  of 
them.  You  have  seen  those  minute  wires,  haven’t  you,  that  compose  the  Atlantic  cable  ? 
You  could  snap  them  like  gossamer,  but  weave  them  together,  and  they  make  the  cable 
that  resists  the  waves  of  the  sea,  and  the  storms  of  the  ocean,  and  binds  continents  to¬ 
gether  that  the  ocean  rolls  between.  It  is  the  sum  of  them.  As  Carlyle  says,  some¬ 
where  :  “  Only  condense  the  electric  fluid  into  a  single  peal,  and  it  shakes  the  firmament  ; 

but  spread  it  out  into  single  tones,  and  it  is  a  lullaby  for  children.”  We  ask  you  to 
collect  and  combine,  to  give  force  to  these  facts,  and  see,  if  twisted  and  twilled 
together,  they  do  not  make  a  coil  which  flings  itself  inextricably  about  these 
defendants. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  have  occupied  more  time,  a  great  deal,  than  I  intended,  and  perhaps 
than  you  have  had  patience  to  listen  to,  and  possibly  with  very  little  effect.  At  the  same 
time,  as  I  said  at  the  outset,  I  do  not  feel  at  liberty,  nor  does  mv  associate,  the  learned 
district ’attorney,  feel  at  liberty,  that  I  should  dismiss  this  case,  without  something  in  the 
way  of  comment  upon  the  facts  that  have  been  presented  before  you.  The  question  is, 
whether  these  parties  shall  escape.  It  is  a  question  between  the  Commonwealth — not  the 
Northampton  bank,  not  the  depositors  in  the  Northampton  bank,  although  these  men 
have  strewed  ruin  in  their  pathway, — but  it  is  not  their  case  ;  it  is  the  case  of  the  people 
of  the  Commonwealth,  on  the  one  side,  and  the  defendants,  on  the  other.  If  they  are 
guilty,  they  certainly  ought  to  be  punished.  Your  safetv,  and  mine,  requires  it,  and  I 
cannot,  I  think,  close  more  fitly  than  by  appropriating  the  sentiments  of  a  great  man, 
whose  first  words  I  heard  some  thirty  years  ago,  when  he  was  standing  in  this  court  house, 
near  where  I  stand  now,  and  although  it  was  the  first  time  I  had  ever  listened  to  that 
wondrous  voice,  those  words  of  grand  eloquence  are  as  vivid  in  my  memory  this  hour,  as 
if  they  had  been  spoken  this  morning.  I  appropriate  his  just  sentiments,  in  adjuring  you 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


21 


that,  “  When  the  guilty  are  not  punished,  the  law  has  so  far  failed  of  its  purpose,  the 
safety  of  the  innocent  is  so  far  endangered.  Every  unpunished  crime  takes  away  some¬ 
thing  from  every  hian’s  security  in  his  property,  and  in  his  life,  and  whenever  a  jury,  from 
any  ill-founded  scruples,  suffer  the  guilty  to  escape,  they  make  themselves  answerable  for 
the  augmented  danger  of  the  innocent.” 

At  the  close  of  Mr.  Gillett’s  argument,  it  was  nearly  half-past  four  o’clock,  and  the 
Judge  said  he  would  give  the  case  to  the  jury  then,  or  wait  until  the  next  morning,  as 
the  jury  might  feel  disposed.  The  jurors  consulted  together,  and  expressed  their  wish  to 
postpone  further  proceedings  until  morning. 

Thursday — Fourth  Day. 

TRIAL  OF  SCOTT  AND  DUNLAP  ON  THE  SECOND  INDICTMENT  FIXED  FOR  MONDAY. 

At  the  opening  of  the  court,  Thursday  morning,  the  time  for  the  trial  of  Scott  and 
Dunlap  for  breaking  and  entering  Cashier  Whittelsey’s  house,  and  stealing  his  gold 
watch  therefrom,  was  fixed  for  Monday,  July  16,  at  2  P.  M.  The  District  Attorney 
desired  to  begin  the  trial  on  Friday  the  i3th,  but  the  defendants’  counsel  wanted  time  to 
look  up  other  counsel  to  take  the  place  of  Mr.  Sweetser,  and  asked  for  the  postponement 
to  Monday. 

Charge  to  the  Jury. 

Judge  Bacon  next  proceeded  to  charge  the  jury,  occupying  about  an  hour.  He  stated 
to  the  jury  that,  in  order  to  find  a  verdict  of  guilty,  they  must  be  satisfied  of  the  guilt  of 
the  prisoners  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.  “  Not  beyond  a  possible  or  imaginary  doubt, 
for  if  that  were  the  case,  crime  would  in  every  instance  go  unpunished  ;  but  beyond  all 
reasonable  doubts,  doubts  for  which  there  is  in  your  mind  a  reason  or  ground.  All  human 
evidence  contains  certain  elements  of  uncertainty.  Nothing  in  this  world  can  be  proved 
to  an  absolute  certainty,  and  there  have  been  men  who  have  doubted  their  existence,  but 
a  jury  would  not  be  likely  to  say  that  such  doubts  are  reasonable  doubts.  If  you  have  in 
your  minds  an  abiding  conviction  that  the  defendants  are  guilty,  and  have  no  doubts  with 
regard  to  their  guilt  which  in  their  nature  ^re  -reasonable,  if  you  have  only  unreason¬ 
able,  fanciful  and  imaginary  doubts,  you  ought  to  convict.  But  if  you  have  a  reasonable 
doubt,  if  your  minds  are  not  convinced,  do  not  come  up  to  a  conviction  that  the  defend¬ 
ants  are  guilty  with  ease  and  readiness,  and  you  are  obstructed  by  doubts  for  which  you 
have  a  reason,  then  you  ought  not  to  convict.  You  should  convict  where  it  becomes 
morally  certain  that  the  defendants  are  guilty,  and  you  are  morally  certain  in  a  case  where 
you  have  no  reasonable  doubts  of  the  guilt  of  the  parties.” 

In  regard  to  the  evidence  of  Edson,  the  Judge  told  the  jury  they  could  convict,  if  they 
saw  fit,  upon  his  uncorroborated  testimony ;  but  it  would  not  be  safe  to  do  so,  and  they 
ought  not  to  convict  upon  it,  unless  it  is  corroborated  in  its  relation  to  material  matters. 
“If  he  is  corroborated  in  important  and  material  respects  in  matters  vital  to  the  issue  of 
the  case,  by  evidence  which  you  believe,  then  you  may  believe  him.”  The  Judge  charged 
the  jury  that  the  evidence  relating  to  Connors,  and  what  he  said,  except  so  far  as  it  was 
said  or  done  in  the  presence  of  the  defendants,  or  either  of  them,  must  be  excluded  from 
their  consideration. 

The  Jury  Retire  and  Bring  in  a  Yerdict  of  Guilty. 

The  jury  retired  at  about  10  o’clock,  and  at  ten  minutes  before  12  came  in  with  their 
verdict.  Joshua  Crosby,  of  Williamsburg,  who  had  occupied  the  foreman’s  chair  during 
the  trial,  was  chosen  foreman.  The  foreman  announced  that  the  jury  had  agreed  upon  a 
verdict  of  guilty.  The  court-room  was  crowded,  and  a  breathless  stillness  prevailed. 

When  the  jury  retired,  they  balloted  at  once,  and  stood  seven  for  conviction,  and  five 
for  acquittal.  After  considerable  discussion,  another  ballot  was  taken,  which  stood  eleven 
for  conviction  and  one  for  acquittal ;  and  after  a  little  more  discussion,  a  verdict  of  guilty 
was  agreed  upon  unanimously. 

Yarious  Items. 

During  the  trial,  the  court-room  was  constantly  crowded,  every  available  spot  being 
occupied.  Nearly  half  the  audience  consisted  of  ladies,  whose  interest  in  the  trial  was 
unabated  to  the  end.  The  audience  thus  constituted  was  in  marked  contrast  with  the 


22 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


crowds  which  usually  attend  our  criminal  courts.  Among  the  audience  were  the  venera¬ 
ble  Rev.  Dr.  Leonard  Bacon,  of  New  Haven,  Bishop  Huntington,  Mr.  Gleason,  president 
of  the  Elmira  bank,  and  several  cashiers  from  Springfield  and  other  places.  There  were 
also  present,  Scott’s  wife,  her  sister  and  a  lady  friend,  from  New  \ork  ;  also,  Dunlap’s 
brother. 

The  prisoners  did  not  seem  to  be  much  suqirised  when  Sweetser  deserted  them.  Dun¬ 
lap’s  brother,  however,  who  says  he  raised  $1500  by  mortgaging  his  house,  to  pay  Sweetser, 
and  paid  him  that  sum  in  advance,  expressed  surprise,  and  made  serious  complaint  at  the 
desertion,  saying  he  should  attempt  to  recover  a  portion  of  the  money.  The  prisoners 
claim  to  be  well  satisfied  with  the  result  of  the  trial.  They  expected  a  verdict  of  guilty, 
and  that  the  case  would  go  up  on  exceptions. 

The  exceptions  taken  will  be  argued  before  the  Supreme  Court  at  Greenfield,  in  Sep¬ 
tember,  and  the  decision  returned  to  the  Superior  Court  next  December.  If  a  new  trial 
shall  be  granted,  it  will  then  be  held  ;  if  a  new  trial  shall  not  be  granted,  the  prisoners 
will  be  called  up  for  sentence  in  December.  The  limit  fixed  by  the  law  for  this  offence  is 
not  more  than  twenty  years  in  the  state  prison. 

The  local  counsel  for  the  defense  say  it  was  agreed  upon,  on  the  evening  of  Wednesday, 
after  Edson  testified,  that  no  evidence  should  be  put  in,  and  no  argument  made.  They 
sav  that  they  did  not  know  of  Sweetser’s  purpose  to  retire  from  the  case,  until  he  actually 
withdrew,  and  that  it  was  as  much  a  surprise  to  them  as  it  was  to  the  court  and  jury. 
Their  conduct  at  the  time  was  consistent  with  this  representation.  The  Bond  Brothers 
are  pretty  straightforward  men,  and  as  lawyers  are  decidedly  square-toed  ;  they  are  not  at 
all  given  to  trickery  or  sensational  action,  and  we  can  readily  believe  that  this  version  of 
the  affair  is  correct. 

During  the  trial,  many  amusing  incidents  occurred.  One  day,  an  elderly  gentleman, 
apparently  a  stranger,  came  in  with  fresh  interest,  to  “  see  the  trial.”  Taking  a  chair  in 
front  of  the  prisoners,  he  sat  for  awhile,  scanning  the  audience.  Running  his  eyes  back 
and  forth  and  round  and  round,  over  the  multitude,  he  failed  to  detect  the  distinguished 
characters  who  were  the  special  objects  of  the  gathering.  Presently  he  leaned  over  toward 
Scott,  and  asked  :  “  Where  are  the  prisoners?”  Scott  smiled,  and  pointing  to  himself, 
said,  “  Here’s  one  of  ’em!”  Elderly  gentleman  then  spoke  of  the  weather,  and  it  was 
noticed  that  he  didn’t  take  up  the  thread  of  the  proceedings  so  readily  as  some  others 
present. 

The  first  man  to  broach  the  theory  that  Edson  was  concerned  in  the  robbery  of  the 
bank,  was  Deputy  Sheriff  Ansel  Wright,  of  this  town.  He  adopted  that  theory  on  the 
day  of  the  robbery,  and  before  the  vault  was  opened.  Within  a  day  or  two,  young 
Meekins,  the  bank  clerk,  from  whom  the  combination  was  taken  by  advice  of  Edson, 
advanced  the  same  theory,  and  without  knowing  that  it  had  been  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Wright. 
Meekins  felt  a  little  unfriendly  toward  Edson,  because  of  that  suggestion,  and  the  more 
readily  believed  him  to  be  one  of  the  guilty  parties.  Dr.  Fisk  also  held  the  same  opinion, 
and  expressed  it  on  the  night  following  the  robbery  and  while  the  work  of  opening  the 
vault  was  going  on.  But  the  bank  officers  did  not  accept  that  theory  until  a  number  of 
weeks  afterward. 


24 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


wanted.  Scott  having  the  right  to  challenge  11  more,  and  the  government  17,  the  Judge 
ordered  the  Clerk  to  send  out  venires  for  forty  more  jurymen,  to  report  in  the  court-room 
at  nine  o’clock  Tuesday  morning.  He  first  directed  the  Sheriff  to  summon  from  the 
audience  at  his  discretion  persons  residing  within  the  county,  to  act  as  jurors,  but  that 
order  was  revoked,  and  venires  ordered  to  be  sent  out. 

The  jurors  challenged  by  Dunlap  were— S.  W.  Bangs,  Samuel  Smith,  Daniel  Converse 
and  Horace  Cummings  of  Amherst,  Chas.  H.  Adams  of  Ware,  Lewis  Hannum  and 
Flavel  K.  Sheldon  of  Southampton,  Willard  E.  Johnson  of  Enfield,  Harvey  Judd  of 
South  Hadley,  Lemuel  C.  Graves  of  Williamsburg,  James  Porter  and  Luther  Wells  of 
Hatfield,  Frederick  S.  Billings  of  Goshen,  T.  C.  Davenport  of  Westhampton,  Francis  W. 
Joy  of  Plainfield,  Ansel  B.  Lyman  of  Easthampton,  Edward  Mason  and  Edward  Stebbins 
of  Hadley,  Joseph  P.  Vaughan  of  Greenwich,  Chauncey  Witherell  of  Chesterfield,  Geo. 
Ames  of  Williamsburg,  Lyman  W.  Baldwin  of  Easthampton. 

Those  challenged  by  Scott  were — Chas.  M.  Combs  of  Middlefield,  Elijah  Hanson  and 
John  Mack  of  Williamsburg,  Joseph  M.  Harrington  of  Prescott,  Wm.  E.  Lyman  of  West- 
hampton,  John  A.  Miller  of  Easthampton,  Augustus  Moody  of  Eufield,  Washington  I. 
Rice  of  Chesterfield,  Lucius  Steele  and  Wm.  Tower  of  Cummington,  E.  V.  Tanner  of 
Northampton. 

Those  challenged  by  the  government  were,  Burnett  E.  Cleaveland  of  Northampton, 
Geo.  S.  Kendrick  of  Amherst,  Joseph  B.  Bosworth  of  Easthampton,  Lewis  Dodge  and 
Mason  Sanford  of  Belchertown. 

Those  set  aside  for  having  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion,  or  for  other  cause,  were, 
George  D.  Eamesof  Northampton,  Chas.  E.  Lamson  of  Hadley,  Eleazer  Howard  of  South 
Hadley,  Clarence  E.  Ware  of  Easthampton,  Daniel  S.  White  of  Hadley,  Geo.  Clark  of 
Southampton,  Rufus  Cowles  of  Hatfield,  Wm.  R.  Holliday  of  Northampton,  Elisha  S. 
Kinney  of  Chesterfield,  Wm.  A.  Nash  of  Williamsburg. 

Leavitt  Beals  and  C.  Butler  Smith  of  Northampton,  summoned  as  jurors,  failed  to 
appear. 

The  following  were  sworn  as  jurors. — Joseph  W.  Akers  of  Granby,  Nathaniel  Dwight 
of  Belchertown,  Edward  Ellis  of  Huntington,  Francis  W.  Harwood  of  Ware,  Amos 
Kellogg  of  South  Hadley,  Henry  M.  Clifford  of  Amherst,  Edwin  H.  Judd  of 
South  Hadley,  Byron  Loomis  of  Williamsburg,  Almon  A.  Spooner  of  Southampton. 

Tuesday— Second  Day. 

The  forty  jurymen  summoned  to  appear  in  the  court  room  at  nine  o’clock,  Tuesday 
morning,  were  promptly  on  hand,  and  after  a  delay  of  about  20  minutes,  the  work  of  im- 
panneling  the  jury  was  resumed.  The  following  ten  jurors  were  challenged  by  Scott  : 
Harvey  Alvord  of  South  Hadley,  Wm.  D.  Boyd  and  George  K.  Edwards  of  Southampton, 
Dorus  B.  Bradford  and  Samuel  A.  Clark  of  Williamsburg,  Horace  Clark  and  Horace  L. 
Clark  of  Easthampton,  John  Ii.  Cook  of  Westhampton,  and  Almon  E.  Cowles  and  Moses 
C.  Cushman  of  Amherst.  Francis  Edwards  of  Westhampton,  Heury  A.  Clapp  of  East¬ 
hampton,  and  Horatio  Bisbee  of  Chesterfield,  were  set  aside  by  the  court,  for  having 
formed  an  opinion  ;  and  Nathaniel  E.  Bangs  of  Amherst,  A.  Lawrence  Clark  of  East¬ 
hampton,  and  William  F.  Ellis  of  Amherst,  were  accepted  and  sworn. 

Twelve  jurors  having  been  sworn,  the  jury  was  now  supposed  to  be  full,  but  the  Dis¬ 
trict  Attorney  claimed  the  right  to  further  challenge,  citing  the  law  which  says  the  chal¬ 
lenging  shall  be  done  before  the  trial  begins.  He  claimed  that  the  trial  was  not  begun 
until  the  jury  was  organized,  and  the  presentation  of  the  case  to  the  jury  was  com¬ 
menced.  The  Judge  admitted  the  right  claimed,  and  the  defense  saved  an  exception  on 
the  point.  The  District  Attorney  then  challenged  Henry  M.  Clifford  of  Amherst,  and 
he  withdrew.  Edwin  W.  Field,  of  Hatfield,  wras  next  called  as  a  juror,  and  said  he  had 
expressed  an  opinion.  He  was  set  aside.  Seth  A.  Healey,  of  Chesterfield,  was  next 
called,  and  sworn.  The  jury  was  now  full,  and  retired  to  choose  a  foreman.  As  organ¬ 
ized,  the  jury  stands  as  follows  :* 

The  Jury. — A.  Lawrence  Clark  of  Easthampton,  foreman  : — Joseph  W.  Akers,  of 
Granby,  Nathaniel  Dwight  of  Belchertown,  Edward  Ellis  of  Huntington,  Francis  W.  Har¬ 
wood  of  Ware,  Amos  Kellogg  of  South  Hadley,  Edwin  H.  Judd  of  South  Hadley,  Byron 
Loomis  of  Williamsburg,  Almon  A.  Spooner  of  Southampton,  Nathaniel  E.  Bangs  of 
South  Hadley,  William  F.  Ellis  of  Amherst,  Seth  A.  Healey  of  Chesterfield. 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


25 


The  Indictment. 

COMMONWEALTH  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

Hampshire  ss. — At  the  Superior  Court  begun  and  holden  at  Northampton,  within  and  for  the  County 

of  Hampshire,  on  the  2d  Monday  of  June,  1877. 

The  Jurors  for  said  Commonwealth  on  their  oath  present,  that  Robert  Scott  and  James  Dunlap,  both  of 
the  State  of  New  York,  on  the  26th  day  of  January,  1876,  at  Northampton,  in  said  county  of  Hampshire 
and  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  aforesaid,  with  force  and  arms  the  dwelling  house  of  one  Laura  B. 
Whittelsey  there  situate,  feloniously  and  burglariously  did  break  and  enter,  with  intent  the  goods  and 
chattels  of  one  John  Whittelsey  in  the  said  dwelling-house  then  and  there  being  found,  feloniously  and 
burglariously  to  steal,  take  and  carry  away  ;  she  the  said  Laura  B.  Whittelsey,  and  he  the  said  John 
Whittelsey,  and  divers  others  of  his  family  being  then  and  there  lawfully  therein  ;  and  that  the  said 
Robert  Scott  and  the  said  James  Dunlap  then  and  there,  in  and  upon  the  said  John  Whittelsey,  who  was 
then  and  there  lawfully  in  the  said  dwelling  house  as  aforesaid,  and  in  the  peace  of  said  Common¬ 
wealth,  feloniously  and  burglariously  an  assault  did  make,  and  him  the  said  John  Whittelsey  then  and 
there  did  beat,  bruise,  wound,  and  abuse,  and  one  gold  watch  of  the  value  of  $200,  of  the  goods  and 
chattels  of  the  said  John  Whittelsey  then  and  there  in  the  dwelling-house  aforesaid  being  found,  felon¬ 
iously  and  burglariously  did  steal,  take  and  carry  away,  against  the  peace  of  said  Commonwealth  and 
contrary  to  the  form  of  the  statute  in  such  case  made  and  provided. 

A  true  bill.  H.  C.  M.  Howe,  Foreman. 

S.  T.  Field,  District  Attorney. 

After  Engineer  Davis  had  explained  his  plans  of  the  Whittelsey  house  and  its  location, 
Cashier  Whittelsey  told  his  story,  and  showed  the  relics  of  the  burglary,  being  examined 
more  on  minor  details  than  whiie  testifying  at  the  previous  trial.  He  mentioned  that  he 
was  at  first  dressed  in  his  overcoat  and  hat  ready  to  be  taken  down  to  the  bank,  which 
plan  was  afterward  given  up,  that  his  pocket-book  with  some  $15  was  taken  from  him, 
that  the  front  door-key  bore  the  marks  of  having  been  turned  with  nippers,  and  that  Dun¬ 
lap  stood  by  him  with  a  pistol  while  Scott  forced  from  him  the  combination.  He  could 
not  remember  that  any  other  bank  officer  knew  the  combinations  at  that  time,  but  did 
recollect  that  they  had  been  changed  within  a  few  weeks.  He  was  cross-examined  closely 
as  to  what  was  the  color  of  the  masks  the  prisoners  wore,  and  how  the  other  three  men 
who  were  with  them  were  dressed  and  what  they  did.  His  answers  were  rather  indefinite, 
though  he  was  pretty  sure  that  Dunlap  wore  a  dark  mask,  overalls  and  a  blouse,  and  that 
Scott  had  on  a  linen  duster,  but  he  could  not  say  which  one  it  was  of  those  placed  on  the 
table  before  him.  Of  the  other  three  men  he  saw  or  heard  little,  but  noticed  them  as  bring¬ 
ing  clothing  for  the  people  to  dress,  and  one  of  them  guarded  him  on  the  hall  sofa  for  a 
long  time.  In  describing  one  of  his  visits  to  the  jail  to  hear  what  the  prisoners  might 
say,  he  testified  that  he  approached  the  cell  by  the  “  back  way,”  using  a  ladder. 

Mrs.  Page  and  Mrs.  Whittelsey  testified  very  much  as  they  did  at  the  former  trial. 
They  agreed  with  Mr.  Whittelsey  that  the  shortest  man  of  the  party  wore  a  black  cap 
with  holes  cut  in  the  front,  making  a  mask  of  it,  that  Dunlap  had  on  dark  clothes  and  a 
not  very  light  mask,  and  Scott  a  long  linen  duster  and  a  close-fitting  mask,  thought  to  be 
white.  The  defense  made  a  strong  effort  to  gain  further  particulars  about  the  clothing 
worn,  but  with  slight  success.  The  whole  discussion  was  somewhat  embarrassed  by  the 
appearance  among  the  relics  of  an  extra  burglar  cap,  never  before  presented  in  court,  of 
which  no  one  could  give  any  account.  Mrs.  Whittelsey  stated  that  at  one  time  there  were 
five  lanterns  burning  in  her  room,  so  that  it  was  very  light,  also  that  the  summer  before 
she  noticed  a  small  part  of  the  grass  back  of  the  quince  bushes  in  the  garden  was  very  much 
beaten  down,  as  though  some  tramp  had  slept  there. 

The  testimony  of  Paymaster  Holt  excited  considerable  interest,  because  the  government 
insisted  on  knowing  what  is  the  average  monthly  pay-roll  of  the  Boston  and  Albany  Rail¬ 
road.  The  defense  took  exception  to  the  question,  the  superintendent  of  the  River  road 
sitting  by  meanwhile  awaiting  the  answer.  The  Judge  ruled  the  question  in,  and  the 
reply  was,  “  Over  2500  men  for  every  month  in  the  year.” 

E.  A.  Hall,  clothing  dealer  of  Springfield,  was  next  called,  and,  though  he  could  not 
identify  the  prisoners  as  having  bought  certain  articles  of  the  clothing  shown,  which  he 
said  was  from  his  stock,  he  remembered  selling  such  articles  to  two  strangers  just  before 
the  robbery,  and  knew  that  he  had  seen  Dunlap  somewhere  before  his  arrest. 

David  W.  Crafts.  This  witness  testified  to  seeing  a  man  who  resembled  Scott,  on  Elm 
street,  in  January,  1876,  and  afterward  saw  the  same  man  on  Main  street,  near  Maynard 
&  Brooks’  store.  Witness  acknowledged  to  Mr.  Bond  that  he  told  him  in  a  conversation 
awhile  ago  that  he  had  doubts  about  its  being  Scott. 


26 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


Wednesday— Third  Day. 

James  0.  Mantor.  Live  on  Elm  street.  In  winter  of  1876,  saw  two  men  standing, 
talking,  near  Whittelsey’s.  They  passed  on  as  I  came  along;  about  7|  o’clock,  in  the 
evening,  early  in  January  previous  to  robbery.  One  dressed  in  long  overcoat,  soft  hat, 
crushed  in  at  top.  One  taller  than  the  other.  Men  had  no  beard,  except  moustache. 
Facing  Whittelsey’s  house,  making  gestures  toward  the  house.  My  impression  is  that 
Scott  was  the  man  I  saw  there.  Shouldn’t  want  to  swear  to  it,  but  that  is  my  impres¬ 
sion. 

Cross-examined.  Cannot  describe  one  of  the  men  at  all.  The  other  wore  a  soft,  mili¬ 
tary  hat,  and  had  no  beard. 

Benjamin  Franklin.  Superintendent  of  Pinkerton’s  detective  agency  in  Philadelphia. 
Scott  and  Dunlap  were  on  the  train  going  South.  Arrested  them  in  the  car,  at  Philadel¬ 
phia  depot.  Had  a  warrant.  They  said  they  were  not  Scott  and  Dunlap;  that  there  was 
a  mistake.  I  insisted  on  their  getting  out  of  the  car.  Witness  was  asked  as  to  what  he 
found.  Defense  objected.  Same  evidence  was  offered  at  previous  trial,  and  ruled  out. 
Judge  said  that  if  what  they  found  there  could  be  connected  with  the  offense  charged,  he 
should  admit  it,  but  he  did  not  think  it  was  enough  that  the  articles  found  were  similar 
to  those  found  at  Whittelsey’s.  Prosecution  claimed  that  the  implements  found  in  the 
bag  in  the  possession  of  the  prisoners  when  arrested,  were  the  identical  implements  used 
in  breaking  into  the  house.  Judge  admitted  the  evidence.  Defense  excepted.  The  bag 
was  opened  by  witness,  and  a  pair  of  nippers  found  in  it ;  also  two  skeleton  keys.  These 
were  found  in  the  bag  at  the  time  of  the  arrest.  The  key  found  on  Scott  opened  the  bag. 
Examined  the  bag  within  an  hour  after  the  arrest,  and  before  it  went  out  of  my  posses¬ 
sion.  Have  seen  Scott  write.  Shown  a  specimen  of  Scott’s  handwriting — an  order  for 
the  money  found  in  his  possession.  Saw  Scott  write  the  order,  and  Dunlap  signed  it. 

Cross-examined.  When  arrested,  bag  was  in  the  end  of  the  forward  car.  Two  other 
bags  were  also  found  with  them.  The  key  found  on  Scott  opened  the  bag  containing  the 
nippers  and  skeleton  keys.  A  key  found  on  Dunlap  opened  one  of  the  bags,  and  a  key 
found  on  Scott  opened  the  other.  Bags  were  opened  at  my  office,  a  mile  and  a  half  to  two 
miles  from  the  depot.  Two  or  three  officers  with  me  as  assistants.  Had  a  warrant  when 
arrests  were  made.  I  made  the  complaint.  Magistrate  filled  out  the  warrant.  Dunlap 
said  nothing  about  his  name — only  Scott  In  the  bag  was  a  hotel  receipt,  from  the  Grand 
Central  ;  also  another  from  the  Hot  Springs.  The  two  bags  were  sent  to  the  New  York 
office.  Evidence  as  to  the  contents  of  the  two  bags  was  ruled  out. 

Ansel  Wright,  Deputy  Sheriff.  Found  a  wrapper  at  the  school-house  bearing  the 
printed  card  of  Hall  &  Prew,  of  Springfield.  Found  eight  army  blankets,  a  valise  con¬ 
taining  bits,  &c.,  chicken,  bread,  rope,  pulley  blocks,  two  railway  guides;  also  a  paper 
bag  containing  cooked  chicken;  the  bag  bore  the  imprint  of  the  Stamford  (Ct.)  restau-  1 
rant,  distant  about  forty  miles  from  New  York. 

Thomas  A.  Gallagher.  A  Pinkerton  detective.  Was  present  at  the  time  of  the  arrest. 
Arrived  in  Philadelphia — found  Pinkerton  and  others  on  the  platform.  Defendants  were 
ordered  off  the  train.  Either  Scott  or  Dunlap  said,  “You  must  be  mistaken,  gentle¬ 
men.”  Saw  the  small  bag  or  satchel  under  the  seat  where  Scott  sat  in  the  car.  Bag 
taken  out  of  the  car  by  the  porter.  Asked,  addressing  Scott,  “Does  this  bag  belong  to 
you,  Bob  ?”  and  he  nodded  his  head  in  assent.  At  the  examination,  Scott  was  asked  his 
name,  and  he  refused  to  give  it,  saying  it  was  part  of  his  defense.  Have  seen  defendants 
frequently.  Scott  had  a  peculiar  habit  of  shrugging  his  shoulders,  as  if  his  clothes  didn’t 
fit  him.  It  was  a  regular  habit. 

Cross-examined.  My  age  is  22  or  23.  Been  in  New  York  three  years.  Lived  in 
Chicago  previously.  Sold  dry  goods.  In  October,  1872,  went  to  New  York;  since  then 
in  the  detective  business.  Came  from  Glasgow,  Scotland,  in  1870.  Sent  to  New  York 
by  Detective  Pinkerton  of  Chicago.  Known  the  defendants  since  Oct.  16,  1876.  Know 
uothing  about  the  bags. 

Questioned  by  the  District  Attorney.  First  saw  defendants  corner  of  Washington  and 
McDougall  streets.  Came  out  of  No.  3,  North  Washington  square,  a  private  boarding- 
place.  They  were  in  company  with  “Wm.  Connors,  a  New  York  thief.” 

Henry  M.  Potter,  Deputy  Sheriff.  Brought  the  sledges,  overalls,  masks,  rubbers,  &c., 
found  at  \V  hittelsey’s  house,  to  my  office,  the  morning  after  the  robbery.  Among  the 
articles,  found  a  pair  of  gloves.  Of  the  goods  found,  a  lantern  is  missing.  Found  a 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


27 


paper  bag,  now  missing.  At  the  Bridge-street  school-house,  found  articles  the  day  before 
the  robbery.  School-house  four  to  five  rods  from  the  main  road,  and  considerably  distant 
from  houses.  Found  there  blankets,  satchel,  bits,  ropes,  pulleys,  chicken,  bread,  and  a 
bottle  of  whisky.  Whisky  bottle  produced,  having  label  of  a  New  York  firm.  Found 
there  a  copy  of  the  New  York  Sun,  dated  December  22,  1875. 

Wm.  D.  Edson’s  Testimony. 

At  10  minutes  before  11,  Wm.  D.  Edson  was  called,  and  there  was  a  rustle  in  the  au¬ 
dience.  He  testified  as  follows  : — 

My  age  is  52  years.  Am  a  resident  of  New  York.  At  present  am  in  no  business  ; 
formerly  was  employed  by  Herring  &  Co.  in  the  safe  business.  Have  known  Scott  and 
Dunlap  since  September,  1873.  First  met  Dunlap  at  Wm.  Connors’,  on  Houston  street, 
N.  Y.  Saw  Scott  and  Dunlap  at  my  house.  Saw  Scott  in  March,  1874  ;  think  he  came 
where  I  was  stabling,  on  a  Sunday  evening.  Saw  Scott  and  Dunlap  at  my  house  two  or 
three  weeks  later.  Saw  them  again,  on  the  Sunday  week  or  the  Sunday  two  weeks,  at 
my  house,  at  my  home,  in  the  morning.  Saw  Dunlap  the  following  Monday  or  Tuesday, 
on  4th  avenue,  near  17th  street.  Have  no  recollection  of  seeing  either  of  them  again 
until  fall,  when  Dunlap  came  to  my  house,  one  Sunday  afternoon.  Saw  him  and  Scott  a 
day  or  two  later.  Saw  Scott  the  following  Saturday,  at  University  place.  Saw  both  not 
long  afterward.  Didn’t  see  them  again  until  November.  Scott  then  came  to  see  me. 
From  that  time,  had  frequent  interviews  with  them  almost  every  day  or  two.  These  in¬ 
terviews  continued  until  the  latter  part  of  January,  1875.  Saw  Scott  in  February.  Saw 
nothing  more  of  either  of  them  until  April.  Saw  them  in  April  and  May,  now  and  then, 
at  intervals  of  a  week  or  ten  days.  Had  interviews  with  both  on  Saturday,  July  29,  1875, 
at  my  house.  Told  them  I  was  coming  to  Northampton  on  Monday.  Spoke  at  that  in¬ 
terview  of  a  trip  that  I  made  at  their  request  to  Wilkesbarre,  and  other  places.  They 
wished  me  to  meet  them  at  Wilkesbarre,  and  wanted  me  to  look  at  the  Northampton 
National  Bank.  Nothing  was  said  about  that  bank  prior  to  that  time.  Told  them  I 
would  do  so,  and  would  meet  them  at  Wilkesbarre.  Told  them  I  was  going  to  North¬ 
ampton,  to  sell  a  safe  to  the  First  National  Bank.  Told  them  in  case  I  could  not  meet 
them  at  Wilkesbarre,  I  would  telegraph  them  there,  in  the  name  of  R.  C.  Hill.  I 
came  to  Northampton,  saw  the  bank  people,  and  was  detained  so  that  it  was  impossible 
forme  to  go  to  Wilkesbarre.  Consequently  telegraphed  them  as  arranged,  at  the  Wyoming 
Valley  House.  I  left  Northampton  Thursday  evening,  and  on  reaching  home  found  a 
telegram  from  R.  C.  Hill.  Went  to  Wilkesbarre,  Friday  afternoon.  Found  name  of  R. 
C.  Hill  registered  at  the  hotel.  That  was  on  the  6th  of  August.  Witness  was  shown  the 
hotel  register,  and  identified  it.  Saw  name  of  R.  C.  Hill  registered  on  the  5th.  Regis¬ 
tered  my  own  name.  That  was  August  5,  1875.  The  name  of  R.  C.  Hill  was  also  regis¬ 
tered  on  the  1st  of  August.  I  was  there  the  week  previous,  on  Thursday.  Saw  them  at 
room  No.  27.  Found  Dunlap  lying  on  the  bed.  Scott  was  in  Pittston.  Scott  returned, 
and  met  them  both.  Told  them  I  had  been  to  Northampton,  and  had  found  that  a  new 
vault  door  had  been  put  in  by  the  Northampton  Bank,  with  new  dials.  Described  to 
them  the  dials  and  their  mode  of  operation  ;  also  pointed  out  to  them  a  defect  in  the  lock. 
The  lock  could  be  opened  without  the  keys,  by  putting  on  a  false  dial.  They  were  par¬ 
ticularly  anxious  to  know  how  much  money  there  was  in  the  vault.  Said  I  didn’t  know, 
but  it  looked  to  me  as  if  there  was  considerable.  They  wanted  me  to  go  to  Pittston.  Said 
there  was  a  bank  there  that  looked  favorable  ;  there  was  a  good  place  to  take  the  Cashier 
across  the  river  in  a  boat.  Gave  Scott  a  set  of  keys  to  a  sample  lock.  He  showed  me 
keys  he  had  made  from  the  keys  given  me  by  Mr.  Warriner.  Both  Scott  and  Dunlap 
practiced  on  the  sample  lock  I  gave  him  several  hours.  Had  a  previous  conversation  about 
the  Northampton  bank  in  New  York,  with  Scott  and  Dunlap.  Geo.  Miles  had  been  to 
Northampton  the  summer  before,  looking  up  the  Northampton  bank.  First  heard  about 
robbing  the  Northampton  bank  between  my  two  visits  to  Wilkesbarre.  Scott  and  Dunlap 
told  me  they  were  coming  up  here  to  look  it  over.  They  told  me  a  week  later  they  had 
been  here.  They  described  how  Whittelsey’s  house  was  located.  I  told  them  I  thought 
the  key  to  the  front  door  of  the  bank  was  a  long,  flat  key.  They  asked  me  if  I  knew  how 
many  watchmen  there  were.  I  told  them  the  bank  had  one.  Saw  them  in  New  York 
on  Sunday  evening,  the  15th,  at  Reservoir  Park.  They  told  me  they  were  going  up  the 
next  day,  and  would  take  Billy  (Connors)  with  them — would  look  it  all  over  again,  and 


28 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


look  at  the  roads  from  Northampton  to  Springfield.  I  saw  them  afterward.  They  said 
they  had  been  there  ;  that  they  were  in  the  alley-way  near  the  Hampshire  County  Bank, 
and  being  suddenly  surprised,  Connors  ran  and  fell  into  a  mudhole  in  the  rear  of  the 
bank.  They  said  it  would  be  necessary  to  put  the  watchmen  in  the  lock-up. 
One  of  them  asked  me  where  the  lock-up  was.  One  of  them  was  near 
the  lock-up,  at  one  time,  to  watch  one  of  the  watchmen,  who  lived  near 
there.  They  said  they  bad  been  here  several  times.  The  witness  here  related  the  inci¬ 
dent  about  Scott  and  Dunlap  lying  on  the  grass  under  the  bushes  in  the  rear  of  Wittel- 
sey’s  bouse,  one  night  in  the  summer  of  1875,  when  the  servant  girl  came  out  of  the  back 
door  and  spent  a  considerable  time  there  visiting  with  her  beau.  The  musketoes  were 
very  thick  and  Dunlap  especially  was  badly  bitten  by  them.  They  were  in  danger  of 
being  detected,  as  the  moon  suddenly  came  out  while  they  were  lying  there. 

Saw  Scott  and  Dunlap  sometime  afterward.  Joseph  Locke,  a  discharged  workman  of 
Herring  &  Co.  had  written  a  letter  about  the  lock  in  use  on  the  vault  of  the  Northampton 
Bank,  saying  it  was  worthless,  and  in  consequence  of  that  letter,  the  lock  was  changed. 

I  did  not  think  it  best  to  go  to  Northampton,  and  gave  up  going,  as  the  bank  was  using 
extra  precautions.  Scott  and  Dunlap  wanted  me  to  go  up.  It  was  arranged  that  I  should 
write  a  letter  about  a  horse.  I  wrote  to  Warriner  about  a  horse  at  Florence,  and  then 
came  up.  Saw  Edwards  and  Warriner.  Stated  to  Scott  and  Dunlap  that  I  had  been 
here.  1  went  to  Florence  and  saw  the  horse.  On  returning,  saw  Scott  and  Dunlap  ;  told 
them  what  I  had  found  here  ;  told  them  I  didn’t  think  it  was  safe  to  attempt  to  get  into 
the  bank,  and  the  matter  was  dropped.  This  was  the  latter  part  of  August  or 
in  September. 

Wednesday  Afternoon. 

R.  E.  Jamison,  telegraph  operator  at  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,  testified  to  sending  a  dispatch 
dated  August  5,  1875,  and  signed  R.  C.  Hill.  Identified  the  original  dispatch. 

Oscar  Edwards,  President  of  the  Northampton  Bank.  Identified  four  letters  and  their 
contents,  as  the  ones  received  by  the  bank.  The  letters  have  been  shown  to  Detective 
Bangs  of  New  York,  Mr.  Delano,  the  counsel,  and  one  or  two  others.  Their  contents  are 
the  same  now  as  when  the  letters  were  received. 

An  Expert  In  Handwriting. 

Joseph  E.  Payne,  for  13  years  in  the  counting-room  of  A.  A.  Lowe  &  Co.  of  New 
York,  and  for  the  past  10  years  a  professional  expert  in  Handwritings,  having  made  them 
a  study  for  30  years,  and  testifying  in  various  courts,  gave  his  opinion  of  the  order  for 
money,  signed  by  Dunlap  and  given  to  Franklin  at  Philadelphia,  the  names  on  the  hotel 
register,  and  the  telegraph  receipt  book,  and  the  superscriptions  on  the  four  letters.  He 
had  examined  them  for  several  hours,  and  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  writer  of  all  of 
them  was  one  and  the  same  person.  When  asked  how  confident  he  was  in  his  opinion,  he 
said  he  had  “  no  doubt  of  it.”  Witness  gave  the  reasons  for  his  opinion  at  great  length, 
and  with  tiresome  minuteness.  The  superscriptions  on  the  letters  he  thought  were 
disguised. 

Letters  Proposing  a  Negotiation  for  the  Return  of  the  Plunder. 

The  contents  of  the  letters  were  put  in,  after  having  been  further  identified  by  J.  L. 
Warriner,  another  of  the  bank  officers.  The  letters  are  dated  February  28,  1876,  and 
October  13,  26,  and  30,  1876,  and  all  relate  to  a  negotiation  for  the  return  of  the  stolen 
securities.  They  are  not  written,  but  printed  with  a  pen.  each  letter  of  a  word  being 
distinct  and  separate  from  the  others.  The  letters  were  read  and  put  into  the  case. 
They  are  as  follows  : — 

New  York,  Feb.  27,  1876. 

To  Directors  Northampton  National  Bank  : — 

Dear  Sirs — When  you  are  satisfied  with  detective  skill  you  can  make  a  proposition  to  us,  the  holders, 
and  if  you  are  liberal  we  mav  be  able  to  do  business  with  you.  If  you  entertain  any  such  ideas  please 
insert  a  personal  in  the  New  York  Herald.  Address  to  XXX,  and  sign  “  Rufus,”  to  which  due  attention 
will  be  paid.  To  satisfy  you  that  we  do  hold  papers,  we  send  you  a  couple  of  pieces.  [No  signature.] 

Accompanying  this  letter  were  two  certificates  of  stock  owned  by  private  depositors, 
which  were  among  the  stolen  property.  This  was  testified  to  by  Mr.  Warriner. 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


29 


New  York  City,  Friday,  Oct.  13,  1876. 

To  Managers,  &c. : — 

Gentlemen — Doubtless  you  have  been  considerably  annoyed  by  importunate  brokers  and  others  ;  so 
have  we,  and  that  this  may  cease  we  presume  to  address  a  few  lines.  Unknown  parties  have  sent 
agents  to  us  at  various  times,  during  the  last  six  months,  to  negotiate  for  the  purchase  of  the  securities 
taken  from  your  vault,  last  winter.  Some  of  these  agents  have  pretended  to  be  acting  for  you  and  by 
your  authority,  but  from  what  little  conversation  they  were  permitted  to  have  on  the  subject,  we  judge 
that  they  were  persons  trying  either  to  obtain  a  footing  from  which  they  might  manipulate  both  ends,  or 
purchase  the  securities  with  their  capital  by  way  of  speculation. 

That  you  had  authorized  any  parties  to  treat  with  us  for  you,  and  instructed  that  party  to  take  such  a 
course  as  the  above-mentioned  parties  did  take,  looked  to  us  a  little  out  of  order,  considering  the  fact 
that  in  our  letter  to  you,  last  winter,  we  told  you  how  to  reach  us  ;  but  at  least  different  persons  assured 
us  that  you  had  objections  against  inserting  that  particular  “  personal,”  and  they  gave  us  very  plausible 
reasons  for  your  objections.  In  view  of  these  facts,  we  will  alter  the  “word,”  so  that  if  you  are  really 
desirous  to  open  communication  with  us,  you  may  do  so  by  inserting  in  the  New  York  Herald,  instead  of 
the  old  one,  the  following:  “  Hope  after  which  you  make  any  remarks  which  you  may  deem  appro 
priate  and  intelligible  to  us,  or  none  at  all,  if  you  choose.  But  we  will  add  that  we  will  pay  no  atten¬ 
tion  to  any  proposition  coming  from  any  other  source,  but  if  the  above  “personal”  appears,  we  will 
send  you  such  instructions  as  will  enable  you  to  communicate  by  a  direct  channel.  You  need  refer  us 
to  no  lawyer  nor  agent,  but  allow  us  to  make  such  arrangements  as  will  suit  our  convenience,  as  we 
have  the  greatest  interest.  Respectfully,  &c., 

Rufus. 

New  York,  Oct.  20,  1876. 

Gentlemen  :  Since  you  have  seen  fit  to  recognize  the  receipt  of  our  letter,  we  will  now  send  you  our 
price  for  the  return  of  the  goods.  The  United  States  coupon  bonds  and  money  taken  cannot  be  re¬ 
turned,  but  everything  else — bonds,  letters  and  papers  to  the  smalles*  document,  will  be  returned  for 
$150,000.  If  these  figures  suit  you,  we  will  make  arrangements  according  to  our  promise,  and  you  may 
have  the  goods  as  soon  as  preliminaries  can  be  arranged  for  the  safe  conduct  of  the  business.  If  you 
agree  to  this  price,  insert  in  the  New  York  Herald  personal  column  the  simple  word,  “Agatha.” 

Respectfully,  &c.,  Rufus. 

New  York,  Oct.  30. 

Gents  :  In  response  to  the  above,  we  will  say  that  we  do  not  propose  to  enter  into  an  argument  about 
the  value  of  the  paper  ;  we  know  what  it  is  worth  to  us,  and  we  arranged  our  price  accordingly.  Those 
figures  we  will  not  reduce.  If  you  feel  disposed  to  accept  at  that  price,  there  will  be  no  obstacle  to  a 
hasty  transaction  of  the  business,  but  if  you  do  not  accept,  the  negotiations  we  will  have  to  stop.  You 
will  confer  a  favor  by  giving  a  decisive  answer.  In  giving  your  answer  in  the  Herald,  please  drop 
words  “  Hope  ”  and  “Agatha,”  and  use  instead  the  capitals  “  S  S  S.”  Rufus. 

Edson  Again. 

The  examination  of  Edson  was  resumed,  it  having  been  interrupted  by  the  evidence 
attending  the  introduction  of  the  letters,  so  that  the  expert  might  return  home  as  soon 
as  possible. 

Scott  asked  me  if  I  found  at  Northampton  an  account  of  their  occupation  of  the  school- 
house.  He  said  if  he  had  known  that  their  occupation  of  the  school-house  was  known 
here,  he  should  have  been  afraid  to  come.  They  went  into  Whittelsey’s  house  by  the 
front  door.  Some  time  previous  to  the  robbery  he  saw  skeleton  keys  in  the  possession  of 
Scott.  At  the  interview  on  Jan.  3 1st,  Scott,  Dunlap  and  Connors  were  present.  Next 
met  Dunlap  Feb.  8th,  on  5th  Avenue,  and  walked  with  him  up  and  down  the  street.  I 
asked  him  if  Scott  had  got  back,  (from  Northampton,)  and  he  said  no.  I  told  him  there 
was  a  strong  probability  of  their  finding  the  property  here.  He  said  he  didn’t  think  there 
was  any  probability  of  its  being  found.  We  talked  about  the  return  of  the  securities. 
Dunlap  spoke  of  the  operations  in  Whittelsey’s  house — said  Mrs.  Whittelsey  was  the 
coolest  of  the  lot.  I  asked  if  they  had  been  rough  with  Whittelsey.  He  said  no — they 
had  only  punched  him  a  little  with  a  pencil.  Dunlap  told  about  their  coming  out  of  the 
bank  with  the  plunder — they  took  it  away  in  two  packages,  one  a  bag  and  the  other, 
perhaps,  a  pillow-case,  and  went  down  the  street.  The  next  time  I  met  Scott  and  Dun¬ 
lap,  we  rode  about  in  a  carriage  an  hour  and  a  half,  talking  about  the  property,  of  its 
return,  and  the  probability  of  its  being  found.  Told  them  I  was  coming  up  to  Northamp¬ 
ton.  They  wished  me  to  see  Edwards  and  Williams,  and  see  what  they  would  pay.  Met 
Williams  at  Springfield.  Next  met  Scott  at  a  lager-beer  saloon.  He  wanted  me  to  get 
from  the  bank  a  list  of  the  market  value  of  the  securities,  which  I  did,  and  read  it  to 
him.  The  amount  was  much  less  than  than  they  had  estimated  it.  It  was  from  $280,000 
to  $300,000.  Talked  in  the  saloon  an  hour.  Scott  appeared  not  to  notice  what  I  was 
saying.  Finally  he  took  out  his  watch,  looked  at  it,  and  said  :  “  I  won’t  string  you  any 
longer.  They  are  just  about  putting  their  hands  on  the  stuff  now.”  This  was  the  15th 


30 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


or  16th  of  February,  1876.  He  said  Whittelsey’s  watch  was  buried  somewhere  near 
Springfield,  with  other  things.  Said  it  was  no  use  talking  any  further.  If  the  bank 
people  wanted  their  property,  they  knew  how  to  get  it. 

Thursday— Fourth  Day. 

edson’s  testimony  continued. 

Edson  said  he  had  omitted  to  state  some  things.  Immediately  preceding  my  visit  to 
Northampton,  on  Nov.  22,  1875,  Scott  and  Dunlap  wished  me  to  see  particularly  if  War- 
riner  had  the  combinations  of  all  the  locks.  I  did  not  know  whether  he  had  them  or  not, 
but  I  saw  Warriner,  and  having  seen  the  clerk  open  the  vault,  I  suggested  to  him  that  it 
was  not  safe  to  have  the  combination  in  the  possession  of  a  person  so  young,  whereupon 
he  changed  it  and  gave  it  to  Whittelsey. 

I  met  Scott  on  Feb.  11th.  He  told  me  about  his  going  to  Springfield  on  the  way  to 
Northampton  to  get  the  securities  ;  said  the  sleighing  was  so  poor  aliove  New  Haven  he 
had  to  give  up  his  sleigh  and  get  a  wagon.  I  told  him  I  had  recalled  him  by  putting  a 
personal  in  the  Herald  to  this  effect  :  “Knox,  come  home.”  He  said  he  had  not  seen 
it,  but  saw  an  account  in  the  Springfield  Union  of  the  7th,  that  the  bank  people  were 
making  a  vigorous  search  for  the  securities,  and  in  consequence  of  that  he  returned.  I 
said  to  him  he  would  know  what  the  personal  meant,  as  he  once  owned  a  horse  by  the 
name  of  Knox.  In  the  Herald  of  Feb.  7,  appeared  this  personal  :  “  Idalia,  G,  Monday 
evening,  6  sharp.”  Met  Scott  the  evening  of  the  18th,  on  Lexington  avenue,  and  went 
to  a  large  garden  east  of  the  Grand  Central  depot.  Scott  said  they  had  returned  with 
the  securities.  Said  Dunlap  fell  into  Mill  river  while  crossing  on  the  ice,  got  wet,  and 
took  a  bad  cold  ;  that  they  went  to  an  unoccupied  cabin  in  the  woods,  built  a  fire  aud 
dried  his  clothes.  He  wished  me  to  get  a  book  containing  the  market  value  of  securities, 
and  to  help  him  sort  the  securities,  as  I  might  aid  them  in  getting  at  their  value.  Scott 
said  they  should  send  back  certain  pieces.  Did  not  see  him  again  until  the  following 
September.  Then  saw  him  as  I  was  riding  in  a  street  car,  and  got  out  and  spoke  to  him. 
Asked  him  what  they  were  going  to  do  about  this  matter.  He  replied  that  they  were  not 
going  to  give  me  “a  damn  cent ;”  that  I  had  given  the  entire  party  away.  I  told  him 
he  was  mistaken.  He  said  he  had  thought  the  whole  matter  over  and  did  not  think  he 
was  mistaken.  I  told  him  we  had  better  have  a  talk  over  the  matter,  and  we  went  to  a 
saloon,  sat  down,  and  took  something  to  drink.  I  asked  him  who  the  parties  were  who 
knew  about  my  giving  the  party  away.  Asked  him  if  he  would  believe  them  in  prefer¬ 
ence  to  me.  He  said  he  was  not  positive  ;  if  he  was,  I  “  would  not  be  sitting  there.” 

Saw  Scott  next  on  Nov.  9th.  Went  with  him  to  Hamilton  ferry  ;  on  the  way,  sent 
back  some  theater  tickets,  which  I  had  purchased,  intending  to  use  them  that  evening  ; 
went  through  unbuilt  portions  of  the  outskirts  of  Brooklyn,  to  Prospect  Park  ;  found 
Dunlap  walking  under  some  trees.  I  asked  them  what  they  proposed  to  do.  They  said 
the  other  parties  would  have  to  be  satisfied  with  what  they  said.  I  said  I  did  not  propose 
to  talk  until  it  was  fully  understood  what  I  came  there  for;  that  I  had  never  betrayed 
them  to  any  man,  woman  or  child  ;  and  related  to  them  all  of  my  connection  with 
M  illiams  and  Edwards.  Scott  replied  that  it  was  “all  a  damn  lie.  ”  Scott  said,  “how 
much  will  these  people  give  and  let  you  go?”  I  said,  probably  $100,000  to  $150,000. 
Scott  said  if  they  would  give  the  latter  sum,  they  could  have  the  property.  They  said 
“  these  people  wanted  their  property,  but  did  not  want  to  pay  anything  for  it,  and  that 
was  all  the  trouble  there  was.”  I  told  them  they  were  known  to  all  of  Pinkerton’s  force. 
I  hey  said  “  Pinkerton  could  swell  my  head,  but  he  could  not  swell  theirs.” 

John  Leary  keeps  a  drinking  house  at  Fort  Hamilton,  where  I  went  on  Sunday  after¬ 
noon  ;  found  Connors  there  ;  went  up  stairs,  and  Scott  came  up.  I  told  him  I  had 
telegraphed  to  Williams  that  if  he  would  come  to  New  York,  I  would  put  him  in  commu¬ 
nication  with  the  parties.  Scott  asked  me  what  they  were  willing  to  give,  and  I  reiterated 
all  I  had  said  at  Prospect  Park.  1  said  they  were  in  danger  of  being  arrested.  He  said 
if  they  were,  “there  was  one  man  who  would  be  brought  into  it,  and  that  I  knew  who 
that  man  was.  He  said  lie  carried  $1000  with  him,  and  if  he  was  arrested,  he  should 
use  that  money  to  “  veutilate  old  Herring.”  I  met  Williams  at  the  Winasor  Hotel,  and 
we  took  a  carriage  and  drove  to  Eagan’s  gambling  house,  616  Broadway.  This  was  the 
week  following  the  interview  at  Prospect  Park. 

W  itness  here  gave  an  account  of  the  commencement  of  the  conspiracy.  It  was  begun 
in  Septembar,  18 id,  and  completed  in  December,  1874.  In  September,  Dunlap  came  to 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANE  ROBBERS. 


31 


my  house..  I  had  an  interview  with  him  and  Scott.  They  wished  to  know  how  to  use 
the  air  pump  for  the  purpose  of  opening  safes,  and  proposed  to  give  me  an  equal  distribu¬ 
tion  of  the  proceeds  of  any  robberies.  I  have  experimented  with  the  air  pump  on  several 
safes,  in  the  store  of  Herring  &  Co.,  and  before  bankers,  to  show  its  use,  but  personally 
in  no  other  way.  The  pump  is  used  to  exhaust  the  air  in  the  safe,  so  that  powder  can  be 
drawn  in  through  a  hole,  and  the  safe  blown  open  by  igniting  the  powder  with  a  fuse.  A 
pound  of  powder  can  be  run  into  a  safe  in  this  way  in  six  minutes.  Met  in  Connors’ 
room  with  Scott  and  Dunlap,  and  showed  them  how  to  use  the  air  pump.  They  were 
pleased  with  it.  Leary  and  another  man  were  called  in  to  see  it.  The  arrangement  of 
1873,  was  incorporated  in  the  arrangement  of  1874.  I  was  to  look  at  banks,  the  interior, 
&c.,  and  report  to  them.  They  were  to  find  the  banks,  watch  the  watchmen,  &c.,  and 
Connors  was  to  negotiate  the  securities,  if  any  were  obtained  ;  that  is,  he  was  to  nego¬ 
tiate  the  securities  obtained  from  the  Northampton  Bank,  and  which  were  not  available 
to  other  parties.  Connors  was  to  give  each  one  his  portion — certainly  he  was  to  give  me 
mine. 

Saw  Scott  and  Dunlap  again  in  November.  They  told  me  they  had  been  at  North¬ 
ampton,  and  discovered  that  the  bank  watchman  went  off  duty  at  about  4  o’clock.  They 
thought  if  they  had  the  keys,  the  job  could  be  done  without  shutting  up  the  watchmen, 
as  they  had  proposed.  They  said  if  I  could  get  duplicates  of  the  keys,  they  could  get 
along  without  interfering  with  the  watchmen.  Scott  gave  me  some  wax.  I  came,  called 
at  the  bank,  and  inquired  of  Warriner  how  the  keys  worked.  He  said  they  worked  a 
little  tight.  I  took  the  keys  into  the  directors’  room,  filed  them,  and  took  impressions. 
That  was  the  day  before  Thanksgiving.  Saw  Scott  and  Dunlap  on  my  return,  and  gave 
them  the  impressions.  Scott  made  a  set  of  keys  from  the  wax  impressions,  showed  them 
to  me,  and  asked  what  I  thought  of  them.  They  practiced  on  the  sample  lock  with  the 
keys  an  hour  or  two.  They  told  me  they  would  come  to  Northampton  that  week.  They 
made  three  or  four  visits  here  in  December.  After  that  I  met  them  on  8th  Avenue,  as 
they  suggested  it  was  not  safe  for  them  to  come  to  my  house.  Met  them  at  different 
points  on  8th  Avenue.  They  wanted  money.  I  told  them  I  would  try  to  get  them  some. 
They  wanted  $1000.  The  man  to  whom  I  applied  wanted  five  per  cent,  of  the  sum 
secured  here.  They  agreed  to  give  a  certain  amount.  I  asked  them  why  they  wanted  so 
much,  and  they  said  it  was  necessary  to  buy  horses.  Afterward  I  learned  that  they  did 
not  buy  any  horses,  They  came  twice  to  do  the  job,  and  returned  without  doing  it. 
They  wanted  more  money,  and  I  got  them  $300  more.  They  were  here  about  a  week 
previous  to  the  robbery.  There  was  a  meeting  here  that  night,  which  prevented  them 
from  making  the  attempt.  They  came  to  reconnoiter  three  or  four  times  in  December. 
Saw  Dunlap  the  Sunday  night  before  the  26th  ;  he  said  they  were  coming  to  do  the  job 
on  Monday  night.  Met  him  on  Broadway,  and  talked  with  him  twenty  minutes.  Had 
an  arrangement  with  Scott,  Dunlap  and  Connors  a  week  or  two  previous,  that  in  case  they 
should  want  to  see  me  after  the  robbery,  they  should  put  a  personal  in  the  Herald,  as  fol¬ 
lows  :  “Idalia,  F.  N.” 

On  the  morning  of  the  26th,  I  left  New  York  at  8  o’clock,  by  direction  of  Herring  & 
Co.,  and  went  to  Bristol.  On  my  arrival  there,  I  was  telegraphed  to  go  to  Northampton, 
and  came  on  the  Canal  road.  Went  to  the  bank.  An  hour  afterward,  a  workman  sent 
by  Herring  &  Co.,  arrived.  Told  him  to  go  ahead  and  open  the  vault,  which  he  did. 
Warriner  and  many  others  were  in  the  bank  when  the  vault  was  opened. 

I  returned  to  New  York  the  next  day.  Put  a  personal  in  the  Herald,  Saturday  evening, 
as  follows  :  “Idalia,  F.  N.,  meet  me  on  the  Avenue  Monday  evening.”  When  the  Herald 
appeared  Sunday  morning,  I  found  another  personal,  as  follows  :  “Idalia,  F.  N.,  Monday 
evening,  8  sharp.”  I  went  in  response  to  this  personal,  and  found  Connors.  He  took 
me  to  Scott.  Went  to  10th  Avenue,  65th  street.  Walked  about .  some  time,  and  met 
Dunlap.  Scott  said  :  “  Well,  how  did  we  do  that  job  ?  ”  The  reply  was,  “  Pretty  well.” 
I  asked  how  he  treated  Whittelsey’s  people,  and  he  said  they  treated  them  well.  The 
taking  of  Whittelsey’s  watch  was  spoken  of ;  I  said  it  was  a  small  piece  of  business,  and 
they  said  it  was  a  mistake  and  the  watch  would  be  returned.  One  of  the  men  pointed  a 
big  horse  pistol  at  the  servant  girl,  which  nearly  frightened  her  to  death.  They  asked 
how  fhings  stood  here,  and  I  told  them  what  I  had  seen  and  heard.  They  spoke  of  a 
meeting  of  all  the  parties  concerned  in  the  robbery,  which  had  been  held  that  afternoon. 
Some  of  the  parties  didn’t  talk  reasonable.  Some  were  in  favor  of  giving  a  portion  of 
the  money  to  a  New  York  detective.  Witness  was  asked  to  give  the  name  of  this  detective, 


32 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


and  he  replied,  “  Radford,”  who  had  been  seen  at  his  house.  Scott  wanted  me  to  see 
Radford  and  find  out  what  he  would  do.  Connors  spoke  of  a  Boston  detective  named 
Chapman,  and  said  he  was  a  good  man.  Radford  is  a  member  of  Supt.  Walling’s  city 
detective  force.  Chapman  was  formerly  connected  with  the  Boston  police  force,  but  is 
now  a  private  detective  in  that  city.  At  this  interview  they  gave  Edson  $1200,  mostly 
new  fives  on  the  Northampton  Bank. 

Under  this  arrangement,  1  put  Williams  in  communication  with  Connors.  I  had  a 
talk  with  Connors  about  his  going  to  Springfield.  (Here  the  defense  objected  to  any 
evidence  relating  to  Connors,  but  the  court  admitted  such  evidence,  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  competent  as  showing  a  conspiracy  between  all  the  parties  to  rob  banks,  and  that  in 
pursuance  of  that  conspiracy,  the  Northampton  Bank  was  robbed.)  Connors  came  to 
Springfield,  Feb.  8th.  Last  saw  him  on  the  evening  of  the  7th,  at  N.  W.  corner  of  32d 
street  and  6th  avenue.  Asked  him  if  the  men  had  gone  for  the  securities.  He  said  they 
went  on  Saturday,  by  boat.  1  said  they  must  be  recalled.  Went  to  find  Dunlap.  Connors 
said  Scott  and  another  man  had  gone  to  Springfield.  I  put  this  personal  in  the  Herald  of 
the  8th  :  “  Knox,  come  home.”  They  came  home  in  the  middle  of  the  week. 

Prior  to  the  robbery,  Edson  said  he  saw  false  keys  in  the  possession  of  the  defendants, 
in  a  room  in  the  Knox  building,  on  Fulton  street  ;  also  at  Scott’s  house.  The  ones  he 
saw  them  have  were  like  the  ones  shown  in  court,  and  found  in  Scott’s  bag  when  arrested. 
Also,  had  seen  them  have  skeleton  keys,  like  the  ones  found  on  Scott. 

After  the  arrangement  of  1874,  1  gave  to  Dunlap  drawings.  (Here  a  lengthy  discus¬ 
sion  ensued  upon  the  admission  of  this  evidence.  The  defense  objected  to  it,  because  it 
related  to  an  act  which  was  not  charged  in  the  indictment.  The  court  allowed  the  papers 
to  be  put  in,  to  show  an  intimacy  between  Edson  and  the  defendants  at  the  time  the  al¬ 
leged  offense  was  planned  or  contemplated,  and  not  that  they  committed  any  other  of¬ 
fense.)  On  July  5,  1875,  I  gave  to  Dunlap,  at  Scott’s  house,  two  drawings.  Witness 
identified  the  papers  containing  the  drawings.  The  contents  of  the  papers  were  admitted. 
The  drawings  were  of  the  vault  and  safe  of  the  Third  National  Bank  of  Syracuse.  Wit¬ 
ness  here  stated  more  fully  the  agreement  made  between  Scott,  Dunlap,  Connors,  and  him¬ 
self,  in  September  1874. 

The  Cross-Examination  of  Edson, 

By  Mr.  Bond,  was  begun  at  ten  minutes  past  12,  Thursday.  The  lock  and  dials  of  the 
Northampton  Bank  were  changed  in  October,  1875.  I  heard  the  change  spoken  of  at  the 
store  and  at  the  bank.  Came  to  Northampton  November  22,  and  was  here  three  days, 
putting  in  vault  doors  for  the  First  National  Bank.  Called  at  Northampton  Bank  each 
morning.  Took  the  vault  lock  off.  Discovered  the  combination  then.  It  was  6,  12,  24, 
48.  Saw  the  young  man  open  the  vault,  and  suggested  to  Warriner  at  the  supper  table 
that  the  combination  ought  not  to  be  left  with  so  young  a  person.  Afterward  heard  that 
it  had  been  changed  and  given  to  Whittelsey.  Did  not  learn  the  combination  of  the  inner 
locks.  Testified  in  New  York,  last  March,  that  I  had  no  knowledge  of  the  locks  on  this 
safe,  or  any  thing  connected  with  it  ;  and  I  had  none. 

Have  lived  in  New  York  six  years.  Went  to  Minneapolis  in  the  spring  of  ’67  or  ’8, 
from  New  York.  Was  there  about  three  years  ;  in  the  harness  business  there  two  years  ; 
never  there  before  ;  shop  on  Washington  Avenue;  started  the  business;  did  not  do  a 
large  business  ;  first  year  there  did  not  do  anything  ;  named  several  persons  with  whom 
he  associated  ;  wife  did  not  like  the  western  country,  and  left  in  consequence.  A  woman 
came  there  to  blackmail  me.  I  was  arrested  by  the  chief  of  police,  at  her  instance,  with¬ 
out  any  warrant.  The  policeman  suddenly  left  the  town.  Woman’s  name  was  “Sue 
McCoon.  ”  I  was  in  Montreal  a  year  and  a  half,  in  no  business.  Went  there  from  Boston, 
where  I  had  been  in  the  boot  and  shoe  business  with  my  cousin,  under  the  firm  name  of 
W.  D.  Edson  &  Co.  Was  in  that  business  there  ten  months.  My  partner  got  me  into 
trouble,  and  I  had  to  go  to  the  wall  or  get  out,  and  I  got  out.  Lost  $110,000.  Did  not 
know  that  papers  were  made  to  have  me  arrested  under  the  treaty — never  heard  of  it  be¬ 
fore. 

Thursday  Afternoon. 

Edson 's  cross-examination  continued  by  Mr.  Bond.  After  asking  one  or  two  questions, 
Mr.  Bond  said  that  Edson  was  prompted  to  give  his  answers  by  a  shake  of  the  head  from 
some  one  sitting  by.  Detective  Pinkerton,  who  sat  near  by,  made  a  prompt  denial,  fol- 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


33 


lowed  by  sharp  words  from  both  sides.  Mr.  Grillett  took  up  the  case,  and  there  were  more 
sharp  words.  The  Judge  said  he  had  not  known  or  suspected  that  such  a  thing  was  going 
on — Had  you  ever  been  married  to  any  one  besides  the  woman  whom  you  call  your  wife  ? 
“There  was  a  ceremony  performed,”  at  Montreal.  It  was  Sue  McCoon.  Lived  with  her 
about  a  year  and  a  half.  I  sent  her  off.  The  ceremony  was  performed  by  a  clergyman. 
Lived  with  her  before  I  married  her  about  7  months,  in  Canada,  and  sent  her  off  about  8 
months  after  I  married  her. 

The  Elmira  robbery  was  then  referred  to,  and  Edson  said  he  never  spoke  a  word  with 
Barry,  (who  was  convicted  of  the  attempted  robbery  and  is  now  in  prison.)  Never  saw 
him  more  than  20  minutes  altogether,  and  not  at  Elmira.  Spoke  with  Northampton 
Bank  officers  concerning  the  robbery  on  the  night  of  January  26,  ’76.  Also  on  Tuesday  of 
the  week  following  ;  also  the  next  day,  Wednesday,  and  again  on  Saturday  ;  on  the  next 
day,  Sunday  ;  on  Monday,  and  on  Thursday  of  that  week,  and  on  Wednesday  of  the  next 
week.  Again  about  two  weeks  after,  about  the  middle  of  March.  Next  interview  was  in 
November.  At  most  of  these  times  talked  with  Williams.  As  much  of  my  testimony  as 
I  could  write  down  and  tell  in  4  or  5  hours  has  been  printed.  Last  March,  I  wrote  my 
statement  off  in  Pinkerton’s  office.  It  has  been  taken  by  a  short-hand  reporter  as  I  told, 
it.  Have  talked  with  Pinkerton  frequently  about  it.  Have  since  enlarged  upon  it ;  en¬ 
large  upon  it  every  time  I  tell  it. 

Mr.  Bond — Will  that  process  ever  stop  ? 

Edson — Not  until  my  memory  gives  out.  (Laughter.) 

The  first  that  was  said  to  me  about  paying  me  was  in  February,  ’76,  when  Mr.  Edwards 
offered  me  from  $10,000  to  $25,000  if  I  would  tell  the  names  of  the  men  who  robbed  the 
bank.  Had  not  told  Edwards  that  I  knew  their  names,  but  had  told  Williams  at  a  pre¬ 
vious  interview,  the  day  before,  at  Springfield.  I  never  let  them  know  that  I  knew  their 
names  previous  to  that  time.  On  the  day  of  Connors’  hearing,  told  Williams  I  knew 
their  names.  Talked  with  Edwards  about  telling  the  names  and  receiving  the  $10,000, 
in  January,  ’77.  Never  since  or  before.  It  was  never  intimated  to  me,  nor  did  I  suspect, 
that  the  bank  officers  considered  me  an  accomplice  in  the  affair.  Was  in  directors’  room 
when  vault  was  opened. 

Read  article  in  Springfield  Republican  about  a  wish  for  a  bank  Cashier  who  would  not 
give  up  the  combination.  Went  to  the  office  in  Springfield,  and  expostulated  ;  no  high 
words  ;  was  not  sent  out  of  the  office. 

Before  the  spring  of  ’76,  accused  Scott  and  Dunlap  of  robbing  and  cheating  me.  That 
was  not  all.  I  did  more  than  accuse  them  of  it.  I  do  not  say  they  put  the  personal  in  the 
Herald,  for  I  did  not  see  them,  bat  I  had  an  arrangement  with  them  so  to  do.  Scott’s 
residence,  the  first  time  I  knew  of  it,  was  17th  street,  one  door  east  of  4th  Avenue.  This 
was  during  1875.  He  then  moved  to  108,  24th  street,  where  he  remained  until  October  ; 
but  the  last  time  I  actually  saw  him  there  was  in  August.  First  heard  that  Pinkerton 
was  connected  with  the  robbery  in  February,  ’76.  Knew  it  positively  in  January,  ’77, 
when  I  was  in  New  York.  From  December,  ’75,  to  March,  ’76,  I  did  not  see  Scott  with 
a  beard,  only  a  light  moustache.  Last  saw  him  February  18.  Here  the  cross-examination 
closed,  and  the  prosecution  questioned  Edson. 

In  March,  ’74,  Scott  and  Dunlap  handed  me  what  was  due  me  from  the  Quincy,  Ill., 
robbery,  $7,600.  I  asked  them  if  that  was  all.  They  came  to  my  house  with  Connors, 
and  he  said  they  had  wronged  me.  Wauted  me  to  tell  the  rest  of  the  party  that  I  had 
got  half  the  plunder,  so  that  they  (Connors,  Scott  and  Dunlap)  could  get  more  from  the 
others.  I  agreed  to  do  what  was  right.  Afterward  met  Dunlap  on  4th  Avenue, 
and  he  said  they  would  give  me  what  they  pleased.  I  asked  him  what  they  would  do, 
provided  I  withdrew  from  it  altogether.  He  said  they  would  do  as  they  pleased. 

There  is  no  ofEer  now  existing  between  me  and  Edwards  for  receiving  $10,000  or 
$25,000.  It  was  made,  but  not  accepted.  Here  ensued  a  long  series  of  exceptions 
and  objections  on  the  part  of  the  defense.  When  Mr.  Gillett  attempted  to  show  by 
Edson  that  the  quarrel  between  him  and  the  defendants  over  the  Quincy  bank  spoils 
had  all  been  settled,  and  that  they  must  have  been  on  good  terms  before  another  attempt 
brought  them  together  again.  The  defense  said  they  were  going  to  argue  that  it  was  re¬ 
venge  that  prompted  Edson  to  turn  state’s  evidence.  The  judge  allowed  the  government 
to  question  Edson. 

After  the  Quincy  robbery,  Dunlap  threatened  me  in  terms  which  no  one  but  myself 
could  understand.  He  said,  suppose  Barry  was  to  go  back  on  me,  what  would  become  of 


34 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


my  wife  and  children  ?  Connors  got  part  of  that  money,  and  Scott  and  Dunlap 
the  balance.  Here  Edson  left  the  stand,  a  witness  in  calmness  and  shrewdness  of 
reply,  provoking  and  putting  to  nought  the  leading  and  enticing  questions  of  the 
keenest  lawyer. 

Lucius  Gleason.  I  live  in  Liverpool,  N.  Y.  In  ’75  was  president  of  the  Third 
National  Bank  of  Syracuse,  N.  Y.  I  saw  Edson  in  July,  '75,  (Objection),  about  four 
hours’  time.  Witness  being  shown  drawings,  said  they  were  of  the  vault  and  safe  of  his 
bank. 

West  Sexton.  Keep  a  livery  stable  in  Springfield  at  the  Rockingham  House.  Saw 

Scott  February,  ’76.  He  came  with  another  man,  and  stayed  over  night.  E.  C.  Clark 

of  Northampton,  was  there  ten  days  after.  Saw  Scott  about  two  hours.  He  “  took 
something”  during  the  evening.  He  did  not  wear  a  beard.  Talked  with  both  of  them. 
Next  saw  Scott  at  preliminary  examination.  I  picked  him  out  from  a  crowd  of  over  20 
persons  who  were  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  street  from  me.  A  man  came  the  next  day 

and  inquired  for  the  two  persons  who  stayed  at  my  house  oyer  night. 

In  cross-examination,  the  defense  failed  to  shake  the  witness’  statements.  Mr.  Bond 
asked  Sexton  if  he  had  any  bets  on  the  trial.  I  have  none.  Didn’t  you  put  up  some 
money  on  it  at  the  hotel  this  noon  ?  No  Sir  !  (General  laughter.) 

William  Sexton.  Brother  of  West  Sexton.  Keep  livery  stable  at  Rockingham  House. 
Was  in  the  barn  when  Scott  and  Dunlap  came.  I  recognize  Scott.  In  cross- 
examination,  said  he  would  not  swear  to  identifying  Scott,  but  thought  he  was  the  man. 

John  Rathburn.  Employed  in  Grand  Central  Hotel,  N.  Y.,  last  February.  Dunlap 
left  his  trunk  in  my  charge  on  the  night  of  February  1st.  I  delivered  it  on  presentation 
of  an  order.  Dunlap  said  he  should  leave  it  ten  days.  Witness  identified  a  paper  shown 
him  as  the  original  order  for  the  trunk. 

Richard  O'Connor.  I  am  a  police  officer  in  New  York.  Only  know  Scott  and  Dunlap 
since  they  got  into  this  fix.  I  went  to  the  Grand  Central  and  searched  Dunlap’s  trunk, 
in  which  I  found  wax  and  burglars’  tools.  Witness  said  certain  parcels  handed  him  by 
counsel  for  government  contained  wax  and  implements  similar  to  those  he  found.  I  also 
found  two  photographs.  Photographs  proved  to  be  those  of  Connors  and  Mrs.  Scott; 
cabinet  size  and  good  likenesses. 

Friday. 

Capt.  E.  C.  Clark  was  the  first  witness  called.  I  live  in  Northampton.  Went  to 
Spriugfield  February  9,  1876,  and  the  only  time  that  month.  Saw  the  Sextons.  Was 
taken  to  the  Rockingham  House  by  one  Wellington,  a  liveryman.  I  spoke  with  the  Sex¬ 
tons. 

Mrs.  Olive  Crafts.  I  live  in  Holyoke.  Came  to  Northampton,  by  the  4  o’clock  train, 
on  the  afternoon  of  January  25.  Saw  Dunlap  on  the  train.  He  was  standing  on  the 
platform  when  I  first  saw  him.  He  entered  the  car  and  sat  two  seats  ahead  of  me,  facing 
me.  At  Smith’s  Ferry  he  got  up,  went  to  the  platform,  came  back,  and  between  that  and 
Northampton  he  changed  his  seat  twice.  Appeared  uneasy.  Wore  a  dark,  tight-fitting 
overcoat,  and  a  silk  hat.  Fix  date  at  January  25,  because  it  was  my  mother's  birthday. 
In  cross-examination  it  was  endeavored  to  shake  the  testimony  in  relation  to  the  kind  of 
coat,  but  failed  to  do  so.  Saw  Dunlap  on  car  platform  at  Holyoke  for  the  first  time,  and 
next,  last  week  Thursday. 

John  Whittelsey.  Key  was  in  front  door  on  the  night  of  the  robbery.  Marks  and  in¬ 
dentations  on  key  first  noticed  morning  after  my  house  was  broken  into.  Have  examined 
it  with  magnifying  glass.  There  is  also  a  night-lock  which  is  self-acting,  and  requires  a 
key  from  the  outside.  There  is  none  on  the  inside.  Here  Whittelsey  pointed  out  the 
two  marks  on  opposite  sides  of  the  key,  made  by  the  nippers  of  the  robbers.  Cross-ex¬ 
amined.  Never  saw  marks  on  key  before  that  time.  Can’t  say  how  long  they  had  been 
on.  Key  had  been  in  use  since  1865.  Never  previously  examined  it,  with  reference  to 
the  marks.  It  occasionally  dropped  out  upon  the  floor,  and  may  have  been  stepped  on. 

Robert  A.  Pinkerton.  A  New  York  detective  for  ten  years.  Have  known  Dunlap  9 
years,  and  Scott  since  the  time  of  his  arrest.  Opened  Dunlap’s  trunk  at  Grand  Central 
Hotel,  and  found  in  it  wax,  screws,  papers  and  burglars’  tools.  It  was  February  15.  The 
hotel  proprietor,  janitor,  and  two  policemen  were  with  me  at  the  time.  Went  to  the 
trunk  when  I  heard  of  Dunlap’s  arrest,  in  Philadelphia.  Dunlap  spoke  to  me  about  the 
trunk  ;  said  he  sent  an  order  for  it,  but  they  would  not  give  it  up,  and  that  I  was  having 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


35 


it  detained.  Asked  me  to  go  to  hotel  and  tell  janitor  to  give  it  up  when  another  order 
was  presented.  Found  photographs  in  trunk.  Took  diagrams,  first  time,  day  after  re¬ 
turning  from  Northampton,  March  29.  I  took  a  valise  from  Scott,  coming  from  Phila¬ 
delphia.  Brought  two  other  bags,  taken  from  Scott  and  Dunlap,  to  Northampton,  and 
gave  them  to  Sheriffs  in  this  town. 

At  this  point,  Pinkerton  said  he  would  like  to  make  a  statement,  with  reference  to  a 
charge  made  against  him  the  day  before.  He  denied  having  prompted  Edson  by  a  nod 
of  the  head.  I  put  the  bags  in  the  vault  of  the  bank  here,  and  took  them  out,  myself. 

Cross-examined.  Four  days  after  robbery  was  consulted  by  bank  officers.  Began 
work  on  the  case  in  a  week,  myself,  alone.  Others  helped  me  at  times — Gallagher  princi¬ 
pally.  We  worked  at  it  during  the  summer,  and  in  the  fall  had  three  men  at  it  half  the 
time.  I  gave  instructions  ;  12  or  13  worked  on  it  at  times.  Bangs  is  General  Super¬ 
intendent  for  New  York  and  Philadelphia.  Trunk  was  not  given  up  till  I  left  instruc¬ 
tions  at  the  hotel.  I  took  the  photographs,  and  then  weut  to  Scott’s  house.  After  I  saw 
Mrs.  Scott  knew  who  the  photograph  was.  My  compensation  for  professional  services  is 
not  contingent  upon  the  result  of  this  trial.  If  the  defense  were  to  make  an  argument 
upon  this  point,  the  government  wished  to  bring  out  the  facts.  The  Judge  said  there 
was  no  evidence  one  way  or  the  other,  and  an  argument  could  not  be  biased  on  nothing. 
Have  known  Edson  since  14th  of  February,  1877.  First  saw  Connors  on  12th  street,  near 
Broadway. 

L.  B.  Williams,  Northampton  Bank  director.  Weut  to  New  York,  and  had  an  in¬ 
terview  with  Connors,  Nov.  1876,  at  616  Broadway,  under  direction  of  Edson.  It  was 
about  the  15th  of  the  month.  Was  alone.  Had  another  interview  next  day,  at  Windsor 
Hotel,  at  4  P.  M.  It  was  by  appointment.  We  walked  up  Fifth  avenue  to  Central 
Park,  taking  nearly  three-fourths  of  an  hour.  Next  day  he  had  an  interview  of  an  hour 
arid  a  half.  Saw  him  next  Saturday  morning  at  the  Windsor,  only  a  few  minutes.  Saw 
him  again  after  his  arrest  iu  New  York.  The  interviews  were  for  the  negotiation  of  the 
return  of  the  stolen  securities. 

George  Serena.  Work  in  livery  stable  in  New  York,  where  Scott’s  horse  was  kept. 
Known  Scott  since  1874.  I  drive  a  private  coach.  Knew  Scott’s  horse.  It  was  generally 
called  “  Knox.”  Saw  Scott  nearly  every  day. 

Cross-examination.  I  did  not  own  the  stable.  The  horse  came  there  in  September, 
and  went  away  late  in  the  Fall.  It  was  a  road  horse.  He  had  another  horse  before  this 
one,  which  had  no  name.  He  bought  it  of  stable  owner.  It  had  been  a  coach  horse. 

George  W.  Gates.  Supt.  of  4th  district  of  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  at  White  River 
Junction.  District  includes  240  offices  in  Mass.,  N.  H.,  Vt.,  and  Ct.  Do  not  know 
what  became  of  the  dispatches  sent  in  this  district  for  1875. 

J.  L.  Warriner.  Vice  Prest.  Northampton  Bank.  This  (holding  paper)  is  part  of 
the  securities  stolen  from  the  bank,  and  afterwards  sent  back  in  letter.  I  handed  keys  of 
safe  to  Edson.  He  took  them,  for  a  few  minutes,  into  the  directors’  room,  and  when  he 
gave  them  to  me,  they  worked  easier.  Combination  held  by  youngest  clerk  was  taken 
away  from  him  on  Edson’s  advice.  Given  to  Whittelsey.  We  had  just  received  two 
thousand  $5  bills.  They  were  new,  stiff,  and  silk  lined,  with  larger  die  stamp  than  usual. 
Been  in  bank  16  years.  Examining  writing  part  of  my  business.  I  think  these  are  in 
the  same  hand  (Shown  letters  sent  to  bank  by  Dunlap.) 

Jesse  H.  Rankin,  telegraph  operator  at  Northampton  for  seven  years.  Dispatches  for 
1875  I  sent  to  G.  W.  Gates,  White  River  Junction.  Do  not  know  what  became  of  them. 
Not  in  my  possession,  now. 

G.  W.  Gates.  Ordered  dispatches  for  1875  to  be  destroyed.  It  is  a  part  of  my  duty 
to  order  their  destruction.  They  have  been  destroyed. 

Vol.  Springfield  Union.  Paper,  Feb.  6,  1876.  The  following  article,  which  the  de¬ 
fendants  told  Edson  frightened  them  from  coming  to  Northampton  after  the  hidden  se¬ 
curities,  was  admitted  as  evidence.  They  had  reached  Springfield,  when  they  saw  it  and 
turned  back.  “  Telegrams  were  received  from  New  York  detectives,  Saturday,  stating 
positively  that  the  securities  recently  stolen  from  the  Northampton  Bank  were  buried 
somewhere  iu  the  town,  and  that  the  burglars  were  coming  for  them.  This  news  caused 
great  excitement.  The  sheriffs  and  a  dozen  specials  patrolled  the  streets  Saturday  night.” 

Edson  then  gave  the  substance  of  the  telegram  sent  to  him  at  the  Wyoming  Valley 
House,  from  Northampton  and  signed  R.  C.  Hill. 

R.  E.  Jamison.  I  am  telegraph  operator  at  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.  I  recollect  seeing  a  tele- 


36 


TRIAL  OF  THE  •  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


gram  from  Northampton  which  said  that  the  sender  was  detained  by  business,  and  could 
not  keep  an  appointment.  Do  not  remember  the  telegram  received  just  before  this  one, 
or  just  after.  Have  had  occasion  to  recall  this  particular  telegram  several  times  since, 
and  have  once  copied  it. 


Opening  of  the  Defense. 

Here  the  government  concluded  its  testimony,  and  H.  H.  Bond,  Esq.,  began  the  open¬ 
ing  for  the  defense.  He  spoke  as  follows: — 

May  it  please  your  Honor,  and  you  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury  : 

The  case  for  the  government  is  closed.  All  the  work  of  a  year  has  culminated  in  the 
evidence  to  which  you  have  so  patiently  listened  for  the  last  three  days.  All  that  power, 
no  less  than  the  Commonwealth,  can  command,  all  that  money,  as  exhaustless  as  the 
resources  of  the  Old  Bank,  can  procure,  all  that  detectives,  with  facilities  which  belong 
to  the  craft,  can  furnish,  all  that  villainy,  such  as  is  unparalleled  in  this  court,  can  sug¬ 
gest,  you  have  before  you.  It  is  a  fitting  time  to  pause  for  a  little,  and  to  recall  to  our 
minds  the  exact  nature  of  the  case,  our  several  duties  with  respect  to  it,  the  rules  of  law 
applicable  to  it,  the  different  phases  of  the  evidence  already  introduced,  and  the  manner 
in  which  we  propose  to  meet  it. 

We  all  agree  in  the  importance  of  the  case.  No  one  born  and  bred  in  New  England 
but  that  desires  to  perpetuate  the  peace,  quiet  and  safety  of  our  New  England  towns, 
and  the  security  which  is  afforded  property.  To  this  end  the  government  can  say  nothing 
but  what  we  endorse.  Yet,  after  all,  it  is  these  defendants,  and  not  public  security,  that 
we  are  trying.  To  them  the  question  comes  home  in  its  supremest  importance.  Right 
here,  upon  these  proceedings,  their  future  depends.  On  the  one  side  are  liberty,  home, 
wife,  friends — all  the  rich  possibilities  of  life  ;  on  the  other  are  prison  walls,  a  wretched 
existence,  perpetual  ostracism  from  all  that  makes  life  desirable.  And  we,  right  here, 
are  to  place  them  on  the  one  sido  or  the  other. 

“  Trial  by  jury  ”  means  something  then,  does  it  not,  in  a  case  like  this  ?  Our  fore¬ 
fathers  thought  so.  Lord  Chatham  termed  it  the  bulwark  of  the  English  Constitution, 
and  they  made  it  a  fundamental  feature  of  our  own.  Pardon  me  if  I  recall  the  provis¬ 
ions  of  the  United  States  Constitution,  Art.  6,  of  the  Amendments.  It  will  serve  as 
the  basis  for  some  things  which  I  wish  to  say.  It  reads  as  follows  :  “  In  all  criminal  pros¬ 
ecutions,  the  accused  shall  enjoy  the  right  to  a  speedy  and  public  trial,  by  an  impartial 
jury  of  the  State  and  district  wherein  the  crime  shall  have  been  committed*  and  to  be 
informed  of  the  nature  and  cause  of  the  accusations  ;  to  be  confronted  with  the  witnesses 
against  him  ;  to  have  compulsory  process  for  obtaining  witnesses  in  his  favor,  and  to  have 
the  assistance  of  counsel  for  his  defense.”  Judge  Story  says  of  this  (Story  on  the  Con¬ 
stitution,  §  1780):  “The  great  object  of  the  trial  by  jury  in  criminal  cases  is  to  guard 
against  a  spirit  of  oppression  and  tyranny  on  the  part  of  rulers,  and  against  a  spirit  of 
violence  and  vindictiveness  on  the  part  of  the  people.  Indeed,  it  is  often  more  important 
to  guard  against  the  latter  than  the  former.  *  *  *  The  appeal  for  safety  can,  under 

such  circumstances,  scarcely  be  made  by  innocence  in  any  other  manner  than  by  the 
severe  control  of  courts  of  justice,  and  by  the  firm  and  impartial  verdict  of  a  jury  sworn 
to  do  right,  and  guided  solely  by  legal  evidence  and  the  sense  of  duty.  In  such  a  course 
there  is  double  security  against  the  prejudice  of  judges  who  may  partake  of  the  wishes 
and  opinions  of  the  government,  and  against  the  passions  of  the  multitude  who  may  de¬ 
mand  their  victim  with  a  clamorous  persistency.  *  *  To  give  it  real  efficiency,  it  must 

be  preserved  in  its  dignity  and  purity.” 

The  whole  spirit  of  the  proceeding  is  summed  up  in  the  words,  “  an  impartial  verdict 
of  a  jury  sworn  to  do  right,  and  guided  solely  by  legal  evidence  and  a  sense  of  duty  ;  ”  and 
the  whole  theory  of  the  trial  is  arranged  to  that  end.  The  judge,  to  preside  over  and 
conduct  the  trial,  tempering  and  guiding  it  in  an  impartial  and  impersonal  manner  ;  the 
counsel  on  the  respective  sides  to  see  that  each  is  fairly  and  fully  represented  ;  the  jury 
to  calmly,  deliberately  and  judicially  investigate  the  charges,  forgetting  for  the  moment 
the  surrounding  world  of  passion  and  prejudice,  and  know  only  that  there  are  certain 
rules  of  law  and  evidence  of  facts  to  be  considered  and  passed  upon. 

Let  us  be  frauk  with  each  other.  The  right  of  these  defendants  is  plain.  But  the  one 
thing  some  of  us  fear  in  the  case  is  that  they  will  not  have  the  benefit  of  that  right  to  a 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBER8. 


37 


trial  free  from  prejudice.  Do  not  misunderstand  me.  I  believe  you  mean  exactly  what 
you  have  said  by  your  oaths,  that  you  will  try  these  men  “upon  the  evidence  given  you 
but  it  will  be  one  of  the  most  difficult  things  you  will  have  to  do  in  this  trial — one  of  the 
most  difficult  things  you  will  have  to  do  in  your  lives.  The  working  of  a  man’s  mind  is 
a  mysterious  process,  and  we  can  hardly  ever  feel  certain  as  to  what  subtle  influences  we 
may  owe  many  of  our  judgments.  Our  whole  lives  and  actions  are  tinctured  with  preju¬ 
dice  ;  in  a  certain  sense  we  are  bundles  of  prejudice.  Prejudice  is  of  that  insinuating 
nature  that,  unwished  for  and  unknown,  it  steals  in  on  our  minds  and  biases  our  judg¬ 
ments,  when  we  think  we  are  most  free  from  it.  In  this  no  class  of  persons  is  exempt. 
Historians,  biographers,  scientists,  men  to  whom  we  look  as  models  in  this  respect,  are 
seldom  if  ever  entirely  free  from  it.  Even  our  honored  and  honorable  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  have  recently  given  us  a  sad  illustration  in  their  position  as  political 
arbitrators.  The  bias  of  party  affiliations  made  the  dividing  line  in  every  instance,  and 
in  questions  and  under  circumstances  that  should  have  banished  party  from  the  mind. 
Yet  none  of  us,  I  think,  would  question  their  honest  determination  to  decide  impartially. 
Take  the  illustrations  which  occur  in  our  every-day  lives,  the  bias,  the  mental  leanings 
arising  from  education,  business,  habit,  sympathy,  or  social  surroundings.  Let  different 
persons,  perhaps  a  farmer,  an  artist,  a  manufacturerer  and  an  educator,  come  here  to 
make  a  little  study  of  our  valley,  what  would  be  most  impressed  on  their  minds  ?  The 
artist  would  take  away  with  him  the  beauty  of  the  waving  grain,  the  loveliness  of  our 
mountain  views,  the  picturesqueness  of  our  mountain  streams  ;  the  farmer  would  have 
mind  the  nature  of  the  soil,  the  productiveness  to  the  acre,  the  crops  best  cultivated,  the 
tobacco  interest,  and  what  is  to  take  its  place,  and  the  like  ;  the  manufacturer  would  be 
able  to  tell  you  of  the  different  manufacturing  establishments,  the  adaptability  of  the 
mills,  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  the  water  powers,  the  relative  ability  of  our 
manufacturers  to  compete  with  other  localities,  and  so  on  ;  the  educator  would  see  our 
region  as  a  remarkable  educational  center,  would  admire  the  plan  and  workings  of  our 
Smith  College,  would  become  interested  in  our  Clarke  Institution,  would  study  Amherst 
College,  Mt.  Holyoke  and  Williston  Seminaries,  would  revolve  in  his  mind  the  various 
educational  facilities,  and  go  away  greatly  impressed  with  our  advantages  in  this  respect. 
All  would  have  had  the  same  facts  spread  out  before  them,  and  all  would  have  gone  away 
with  different  impressions,  owing  to  the  different  bent  of  their  minds.  Ask  a  woman 
who  devotes  herself  to  fashion  about  any  particular  person  whom  she  saw  at  a  certain 
time,  and  how  immediately  will  come  up  to  her  mind  that  horrid  bonnet,  that  lovely 
dress,  that  ridiculous  combination  of  colors,  that  unpardonable  disregard  of  fashion,  ele¬ 
ments  which  to  her  made  up  the  person,  but  which  we  in  our  unsophisticated  innocence 
had  not  realized.  How  ready,  too,  we  are  to  see  innocence  in  the  actions  of  those  we 
love,  and  meanness  in  the  doings  of  those  we  hate.  Let  me  take  another  illustration, 
which  has  a  special  pertinence  to  this  case — for  you  will  bear  in  mind  that  the  case  for 
the  prosecution  has  been  engineered  by  detectives.  And  I  cannot  do  better  than  to  make 
it  in  the  language  of  an  eminent  writer  on  the  law  of  evidence — Taylor.  He  says  (vol.  1, 
§49):  “The  testimony  of  policemen  and  others  employed  in  the  detection  of  crime, 
should  be  watched  with  great  care,  not  because  they  intentionally  pervert  the  truth,  but 
because  their  professional  zeal,  fed  as  it  is  by  a  habitual  intercourse  with  the  vicious,  and 
by  the  frequent  contemplation  of  human  nature  in  its  most  revolting  form,  almost  neces¬ 
sarily  leads  them  to  ascribe  actions  to  the  worst  motives,  and  to  give  a  color  of  guilt  to 
facts  and  conversations,  which  are,  perhaps,  in  themselves,  consistent  with  perfect  recti¬ 
tude.  That  all  men  are  guilty  until  they  are  proved  to  be  innocent,  is  naturally  a  creed 
of  the  police,  but  it  is  a  creed  which  finds  no  sanction  in  a  court  of  justice.”  Again,  he 
says  (§  59):  “Something  occurs  to  raise  a  suspicion  against  a  particular  party.  Police 
officers  are  immediately  upon  the  alert,  and  with  professional  zeal  ransack  every  place  and 
paper,  and  examine  into  every  circumstance  which  can  tend  to  show,  not  his  innocence, 
but  his  guilt.  Presuming  him  to  be  gnilty  from  the  first,  they  are  apt  to  consider  his 
acquittal  as  a  tacit  reflection  on  their  discrimination  or  skill,  and  with  something  like 
the  feeling  of  a  keen  sportsman,  they  determine,  if  possible,  to  bag  their  game.  Inno¬ 
cent  actions  may  thus  be  misinterpreted,  innocent  words  be  misunderstood,  and  as  men 
readily  believe  what  they  anxiously  desire,  facts  the  most  harmless  may  be  construed  into 
strong  confirmation  of  preconceived  notions.” 

I  have  dwelt  upon  this  feature  of  the  case,  because  we  have  been  told  over  and  over 
again  that  we  could  not  get  a  jury  to  try  this  case  that  would  not  be  prejudiced.  And  it 


38 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


is  easy  to  see  the  foundation  upon  which  this  statement  is  made.  One  cannot  soon  forget 
the  excitement  when  it  was  announced  that  the  Old  Bank  had  been  robbed.  People  gath¬ 
ered  on  the  street  corners,  in  the  stores  and  post-offices,  eager  to  gather  and  discuss  the 
particulars.  The  bold  attack  upon  the  rishest  and  most  powerful  institution  in  our  val¬ 
ley,  was  the  theme  upon  every  tongue.  Since  that  time  the  excitement  has  been  con¬ 
stantly  fed  by  all  sorts  of  stones  and  rumors,  many  false  and  absurd  ;  these  defendants 
have  been  constantly  assumed  so  be  guilty,  and  large  sums  of  money  have  been  expended 
and  powerful  influences  exerted  to  satisfy  people  that  they  are  so.  Seeing  and  knowing  all 
this,  we  have  felt  the  force  of  the  remarks  that  we  could  do  nothing  before  a  Hampshire 
County  jury.  If  that  be  so,  it  is  but  a  farce  to  be  here ;  this  trial  is  but  a  mockery.  But 
I  have  faith  otherwise.  It  has  been  with  pleasure  as  well  as  with  pride  that  I  have  as¬ 
sured  these  defendants  and  strangers  that  right  here  in  Hampshire  County,  within  the 
very  shadow  of  the  powerful  institution  that  stands  back  of  the  prosecution,  that  right 
here,  they  could  find  a  jury  who  would  set  aside  the  inevitable  mass  of  prejudice  and  the 
almost  irresistible  demand  which  has  been  pressed  into  the  case,  and  would  deal  with 
them  fairly  and  impartially  upon  the  law  and  evidence  presented,  and  upon  that  only. 
Acting  for  them,  that  is  ail  we  desire  ;  speaking  for  them,  that  is  all  they  ask.  Will  you 
not  see  to  it  that  they  have  it  ? 

There  are  certain  fundamental  rules  of  law  applicable  to  the  evidence  in  the  case  to 
which  I  wish  to  call  your  attention.  The  first  of  these  is,  that  the  law  presume*  every  man 
to  be  innocent  until  he  is  proved  guilty.  This  is  a  good  rule  by  which  to  test  your  feelings 
in  the  case.  Did  you  when  you  took  your  seats  upon  the  pannel,  can  you  now  start  with 
that  presumption  fairly  applied  ?  It  means  more  than  a  glittering  generality.  It  re¬ 
quires  you  to  take  their  case  presuming  them  to  be  as  innocent  of  this  crime  as  you  would 
your  own  friend,  or  his  Honor  upon  the  bench,  and  that  presumption  stands  as  a 
constant  shield  to  protect  them  through  the  case.  It  is  as  evidence  for  them,  aud  is 
stronger  than  some  evidence  against  them.  Take  for  instance  the  evidence  of  Edson — 
and  I  shall  explain  it  more  fully  with  reference  to  his  testimony  ;  if  Edsou’s  evidence 
were  placed  by  itself  against  this  presumption,  the  presumption  would  outweigh  it. 
Figuratively  speaking,  Edson  would  be  kicked  from  the  witness  stand — and  I  trust  he 
would  land  in  the  arms  of  the  officers  of  the  law  where  he  belongs. 

Following  from  this  presumption  of  innocence  is  the  second  rule  to  which  I  wish  to  call 
your  attention,  that  the  charges  alleged  by  the  government  must  be  proved  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt.  Most  of  you  have  doubtless  heard  this  question  of  burden  of  proof 
talked  about  in  civil  cases,  and  may  have  formed  your  idea  of  what  it  means  from  that. 
But  there  is  a  great  difference  between  the  two.  In  the  civil  case  you  cometo  the  con¬ 
clusion  that  in  the  whole  the  preponderence  of  the  evidence  is  a  certain  way, — as  Lincoln 
used  to  illustrate  it,  you  feel  like  saying  “  I'll  bet  you  a  sixpence  that  it  is  so  ;  ”  but  in  a 
criminal  case  burden  of  proof  means  somethiug  much  stronger.  Roscoe,  in  his  Criminal 
Evidence  (p.  14)  says  of  the  distinction  :  “The  difference  between  rules  as  to  presump¬ 
tions  in  civil  and  criminal  cases  seems  to  arise  from  this  ;  that  in  civil  cases  it  is  always 
necessary  for  the  jury  to  decide  the  question  at  issue  between  the  parties,  and  whatever 
be  their  decision,  the  rights  of  the  parties  will  accordingly  be  effected.  However  much, 
therefore,  they  may  be  perplexed,  they  cannot  escape  from  giving  a  verdict  founded  upon 
one  view  or  the  other  of  the  conflicting  evidence  before  them.  Presumptions,  therefore, 
are  made  in  comparatively  weak  grounds.  Butin  criminal  cases  there  is  always  a  result  - 
open  to  the  jury  which  is  practically  looked  upon  as  a  mere  negative,  namely,  that  which 
declares  the  accused  to  be  not  guilty  of  the  crime  of  which  he  is  charged.  In 
cases  of  doubt  it  is  to  this  view  that  the  jury  is  taught  to  lean.” 

Wherever  there  is  a  doubt  then — not  a  mere  impossible,  imaginary  doubt,  but  a  reason¬ 
able  doubt,  the  prisoner  is  to  have  the  benefit  and  is  to  be  acquitted.  That  I  may  be 
exact  in  this,  let  me  use  the  language  of  two  of  the  chief  justices  of  our  highest  court. 

In  Commonwealth  vs.  Webster,  5  Cush.  295  p.  320,  Chief  Justice  Shaw  says  :  “  Reason- 

aide  doubt  is  a  term  often  used,  probably  pretty  well  understood,  but  not  easily  defined. 

It  is  not  a  mere  possible  doubt,  because  everything  relating  to  human  affairs  and  depend¬ 
ing  upon  evidence  is  open  to  some  possible  or  imaginary  doubt.  It  is  that  state  of  the 
case,  which,  after  the  entire  comparison  and  consideration  of  all  the  evidence,  leaves  the 
minds  of  the  jurors  in  that  condition  that  they  cannot  say  they  feel  an  abiding  convic¬ 
tion,  to  a  moral  certainty  of  the  truth  of  the  charge.  The  burden  of  proof  is  on  the 
prosecutor.  All  the  presumptions  of  law  independent  of  evidence  are  in  his  favor,  and 


TRIAL  OR  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANE  ROBBERS. 


39 


every  person  is  presumed  to  be  innocent  until  he  is  proved  guilty.  If  upon  such  proof 
there  is  a  reasonable  doubt  remaining,  the  accused  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  it  by 
acquital.  For  it  is  not  sufficient  to  show  a  probability,  though  a  strong  one  arising  from 
the  doctrine  of  chances,  that  the  fact  charged  is  more  likely  to  be  true  than  the  contrary  ; 
but  the  evidence  must  establish  the  truth  of  the  fact  to  a  reasonable  and  moral  certainty, 
a  certainty  that  convinces  and  directs  the  understanding,  and  satisfies  the  reason  and 
judgment  of  those  who  are  bound  to  act  conscientiously  upon  it.”  And  our  present 
Chief  Justice  Gray  in  Commonwealth  vs.  Costley  118  Mass.  24,  says  :  “  Proof  beyond  a 

reasonable  doubt  is  not  beyond  all  possible  or  imaginary  doubt,  but  such  proof  as  pre¬ 
cludes  every  reasonable  hypothesis  except  that  which  it  tends  to  support.  It  is  proof  to  a 
moral  certainty  as  distinguished  from  absolute  certainty.  As  applied  to  a  judicial  trial 
for  crime,  the  two  phrases  are  synonymous  and  equivalent  ;  each  has  been  used  by 
eminent  judges  to  explain  the  other  ;  and  each  signifies  such  proof  as  satisfies  the  judg¬ 
ment  and  conscience  of  the  jury,  as  reasonable  men,  applying  their  reason  to  the  evidence 
before  them,  that  the  crime  charged  has  been  committed  by  the  defendant,  and  so  satis¬ 
fies  them  as  to  leave  no  other  reasonable  conclusion  possible.” 

I  desire  to  call  your  attention  more  particularly  to  the  rule  expressed  in  this  last 
sentence,  that  you  are  to  he  so  satisfied  as  to  leave  no  other  reasonable  conclusion  possible. 
By  that  the  duty  is  thrown  upon  you  to  examine  all  the  evidence  carefully,  to  study  it  to 
see  if  in  any  way  you  can  make  it  consistent  with  any  other  theory  than  that  of  guilt,  and 
if  you  can  you  are  to  acquit  the  defendants.  It  places  your  position  and  our  own  in 
complete  harmony.  Our  duties  are  the  same  :  to  insist  upon  rigid,  exact  and  legal  proof 
at  every  step  in  the  trial,  to  explain,  modify  and  to  make  consistent  with  the  defendants’ 
side  of  the  case  such  evidence  as  is  before  us,  relying  always  upon  the  presumption  of 
innocence  and  the  burden  of  proof.  And  if  at  any  point  we  as  counsel  fail,  you  as  guar¬ 
dians  of  the  defendants’  rights  will  supply  our  lack. 

The  evidence  for  the  government  is  divided  into  two  general  classes  :  i.  e.,  the  testimony 
of  Edson,  and  the  evidence  as  to  identity. 

It  is  upon  the  evidence  of  Edson  that  the  government  must  in  the  main  rest.  He  it  is 
that  gives  life  to  the  whole  case,  and  it  is  upon  his  word  that  the  defendants  will  be  con¬ 
victed,  if  at  all.  Edson  avows  himself  to  be  an  accomplice,  and  I  desire  to  say  a  word  as 
to  accomplices  in  general,  and  then  of  Wm.  D.  Edson  in  particular  : 

The  practice  in  our  courts  of  justice  is  clear  as  to  the  evidence  of  accomplices.  Again, 
let  me  be  exact,  (for  I  wish  to  claim  nothing  but  what  we  may  all  stand  by,)  and  make 
my  language  that  of  the  authorities.  Phillips,  in  his  work  on  Evidence,  (vol.  I,  page  111,) 
says  :  “  Great  injustice  would  result  if  it  were  the  practice  of  juries  to  convict  upon  the 

uncorroborated  evidence  of  accomplices,  whose  testimony  though  admitted  from  necessity, 
ought  always  to  be  received  with  great  jealousy  and  caution.  For  upon  their  own  con¬ 
fession  they  stand  contaminated  with  guilt ;  they  admit  the  participation  in  the  very  crime 
which  they  endeavor  by  their  evidence  to  fix  upon  the  prisoner  ;  they  are  sometimes  en¬ 
titled  to  a  reward  upon  obtaining  a  conviction,  and  always  expect  to  earn  a  pardon.  Accom¬ 
plices,  therefore,  are  of  a  tainted  character,  giving  their  testimony  under  the  strongest  mo¬ 
tives  to  deceive  ;  and  a  jury  would  not  in  general  be  justified  in  giving  to  such  witnesses  credit 
for  a  conscientious  regard  to  the  obligation  of  an  oath.  Sometimes  they  may  be  tempted 
to  accuse  a  party  wholly  innocent  in  order  to  screen  themselves  or  a  guilty  associate  ;  and 
and  if  the  prisoner  has  been  their  participator  in  crime,  they  may  be  disposed  to  color 
and  exaggerate  their  statements  against  him  with  a  view  to  hide  their  own  infamy,  or  by 
obtaining  his  conviction  to  protect  themselves  from  his  vengeance  and  secure  the  expected 
benefit.  The  doctrine,  therefore,  of  a  conviction  being  legal  upon  the  uncorroborated 
evidence  of  an  accomplice  has  been  greatly  modified  in  practice  ;  and  it  has  long  beeu 
considered,  as  a  general  rule  of  practice,  that  the  testimony  of  an  accomplice  should  re¬ 
ceive  confirmation  ;  and  that  unless  it  be  corroborated  in  some  material  particular  by  un¬ 
impeached  evidence,  the  presiding  judge  ought  to  advise  the  jury  to  acquit  the  prisoner.” 
And  says  Martin,  J.,  (in  Commonwealth  vs.  Bosworth,  22  Pick.  399,)  “  The  source  of 
this  evidence  is  so  corrupt,  that  it  is  always  looked  upon  with  suspicion  and  jealousy,  and 
is  deemed  unsafe  to  rely  upon  without  confirmation.  Hence  the  court  ever  consider  it 
their  duty  to  advise  the  jury  to  acquit  where  there  is  no  evidence  other  than  the  uncor¬ 
roborated  testimony  of  an  accomplice.”  Davis,  in  his  Criminal  Justice,  (p.  125,)  sums 
it  up  in  a  few  words:  “The  credibility  of  accomplices  when  made  witnesses  is  always 
doubtful,  suspicious  and  liable  to  be  impeached  ;  and  their  testimony,  unless  fully  corrob- 


40 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


orated  by  other  evidence,  is  of  very  little,  and  generally  of  no  weight  or  value  in  the 

prosecution.”  1  ^  S  '"'  S 

If  this  is  true  of  ordinary  cases,  what  should  be  said  of  the  accomplice  Edson  ?  What 
does  he  say  for  himself  ?  Take  his  history  as  he  has  given  it — there  is  no  time,  there  is 
no  place  where  you  can  touch  him,  but  he  is  bad. 

“His  conscience  hath  a  thousand  several  tongues, 

And  every  tongue  doth  tell  a  several  tale, 

And  every  tale  condemns  him  as  a  villain.” 

There  is  no  crime  which  he  has  hesitated  to  commit,  there  is  no  infamy  but  he  has  wil¬ 
lingly  sounded  the  depths — and  do  you  think  he  would  hesitate  to  lie  ?  We  take  this 
issue  squarely  :  that  he  is  a  villain  and  a  liar,  and  independent  of  the  law  which  would 
sustain  us,  we  shall  ask  you  to  say  that  he  is  unworthy  of  any  belief. 

But  it  will  be  said,  he  tells  his  story  so  well,  it  bears  the  stamp  of  truth,  it  is  impossi¬ 
ble  that  it  shonld  be  made  up.  We  have  two  suggestions  to  make  in  answer  to  that  ; 
first,  Edson  can  lie  better,  probably,  than  any  gentleman  on  your  pannel  can  take  the 
stand  and  tell  the  truth,  untruth  is  a  part  of  his  nature,  has  become  a  habit  of  his  life. 
Think  of  it  for  a  moment,  from  the  first  he  has  been  false  to  his  family,  false  to  his  wife, 
false  to  his  creditors,  false  to  his  employers,  false  to  those  who  have  received  him  in  places 
of  trust  and  confidence,  false  to  every  one  with  whom  he  has  been  connected.  His  whole 
life  has  beeu  one  stupendous  lie  ;  and  do  not  think  that  he  lacks  any  qualifications  nec¬ 
essary  for  him  to  carry  out  his  lie  here  upon  the  stand.  And  in  the  second  place  we  have 
to  suggest  that  it  is  not  so  difficult  after  all.  We  make  no  question  that  Edson  knows 
about  the  burglary,  all  the  facts,  all  the  persons.  He  has  therefore  simply  to  tell  the 
facts  as  they  actually  occurred  using  the  names  of  the  defendants  instead  of  the  names  of 
two  of  the  real  actors.  He  has  every  motive  to  do  this.  Suspected  himself  from  the  first 
he  found  it  necessary  to  tell  of  some  one  to  save  himself.  It  was  the  most  natural  thing 
for  him  to  plan  to  gain  the  reward,  save  his  accomplices  at  the  same  time  revenge  himself 
on  two  of  his  enemies.  He  had  had  trouble  with  these  men  in  the  spring  of  1875,  and  he 
now  had  an  opportunity  to  clear  off  old  scores,  carry  through  another  conspiracy  equal  to 
that  which  he  testifies  to,  again  rob  the  bank  in  the  guise  of  honesty,  and  take  himself  to 
Europe  or  somewhere  else  to  finish  his  career.  He  is  just  the  man  to  plan  and  to  execute 
it,  and  he  has  done  it  well. 

The  suspicion  against  Edson,  the  offers  of  reward,  the  trouble  previously  with  these 
men  are  already  in  evidence.  We  shall  also  introduce  as  showing  the  truth  of  this  hy¬ 
pothesis,  the  deposition  of  one  John  Berry,  now  confined  in  the  Auburn  State’s  Prison 
for  an  attempt  upon  the  Elmira  Bank.  Berry  testifies  in  detail  to  the  same  conspiracy 
which  Edson  has  detailed,  says  that  it  was  made  with  him,  (Berry,)  and  not  with  the  de¬ 
fendants,  that  they  then  talked  of  the  Northampton  Bank,  and  that  then  Edson  agreed  to 
swear  the  guilt  of  any  sssociate  upon  some  one  else  in  case  of  discovery.  It  is  significant 
that  at  this  trial  for  the  first  time  Edson  has  mentioned  Berry’s  name,  as  if  in  anticipation 
of  the  deposition  which  has  been  on  file  and  undoubtedly  seen  by  him.  And  he  takes  oc¬ 
casion  to  anticipate  and  deny  it.  Berry’s  testimony  has  certainly  every  stamp  of  truth 
that  accompanies  Edson's  statements,  and  the  only  difference  between  the  two  witnesses  is 
that  Berry  is  in  State’s  Prison  and  Edson  ought  to  be  there. 

The  evidence  as  to  the  identity  is  divided  into  two  classes,  i.  e.,  that  of  the  family,  and 
the  outside  people  from  this  and  Hampden  County.  In  considering  the  matter  of  the 
identity  as  testified  to  by  the  family  it  is  well  to  remember  the  caution  which  an  eminent 
writer  upon  evidence  gives  that  “experience  teaches  the  danger  of  relying  implicitly  on 
the  evidence  of  even  the  most  conscientious  witnesses  respecting  questions  of  identity.” 
Some  of  you  may  recall  the  trial  scene  in  Les  Miserables.  There  was  the  crowded  court 
room  like  this,  and  there  as  here  on  the  question  of  identity  depended  the  future  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar.  Jevert,  that  personification  of  official  astuteness  comes  forward  and 
says  he  has  known  him  for  many  years,  and  that  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  identity  ;  three 
former  fellow  convicts  testify,  after  being  cautioned  by  the  Court,  to  the  same  effect.  The 
whole  audience  believe  him  to  be  the  person,  and  just  in  time  to  save  the  sentence,  the 
true  convict  Jean  Valjean  steps  forward  and  saves  him  from  becoming  a  victim  to  a  mis¬ 
taken  ideutity.  Take  a  historical  case  nearer  home.  Some  years  ago  a  man  by  the 
name  of  Sherman  was  tried  in  Middlesex  County  for  an  assault  upon  a  girl  in  Medford  on 
Saturday,  and  in  Newton  on  the  following  Monday.  A  week  after  a  man  made  his  appear-^ 
ance  in  Newton,  and  was  at  once  recognized  as  the  culprit.  The  two  girls  selected  him 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


41 


from  among  a  hundred  others,  and  at  the  trial  nineteen  witnesses  swore  positively  to  his 
identity.  The  presiding  judge  remarked  that  he  had  never  seen  a  stronger  case  of  identi¬ 
ty  proven,  and  yet  in  that  case  the  government  became  satisfied  that  they  had  made  a 
mistake.  “It  is  a  mere  matter  of  opinion,  especially  when  seen  in  the  night  time,”  say 
our  Supreme  Court  in  a  recent  case  ;  and  in  an  earlier  case  they  add,  “mistaken  identity  is 
a  matter  of  common  experience.”  You  have  found  it  so  have  you  not  ?  How  often  have 
you  spoken  to  a  person  as  one,  to  find  out  it  was  another  ;  how  frequently  we  hear  a  voice 
or  step,  or  see  the  form  of  a  person  that  we  mistake  for  another.  If  you  have  attended  a 
masked  ball  ;  or  if  you  were  present  at  any  of  the  antiques  and  horribles  recently  you  have 
experienced  how  easy  it  was  to  mistake  a  person  disguised,  and  you  will  bear  in  mind  that 
these  persons  were  so  disguised.  “There  is  one  little  word”  said  my  eloquent  friend, 
when  speaking  to  this  point  a  week  ago,  and  addressing  one  sitting  in  your  place  Mr. 
Foreman,  “there  is  ©lie  little  word,”  he  said,  “which  when  uttered  these  defendants 
would  carry  in  their  recollections  to  their  dying  day.”  It  is  only  a  week  since  that  word 
was  uttered.  It  was  said  in  the  presence  of  counsel  who  felt  the  terrible  responsibility 
which  accompanied  it :  in  the  presence  of  a  crowded  court  room,  breathless  in  its  stillness 
and  with  every  ear  strained  to  catch  the  slightest  intonations  of  the  voice.  But  I  venture 
to  say  that  not  one  of  these  who  heard  it  would  dare  now  to  identify  the  speaker  by  his 
voice  ;  and  I  venture  to  say  that  not  one  upon  your  panned  will  venture  to  convict  these 
defendants  upon  any  such  identity. 

But  there  are  other  witnesses  they  say  who  saw  the  defendants,  as  they  think,  at 
various  times  here  and  in  Springfield.  We  adopt  that  testimony  as  our  own  and  if  it  is  true 
it  is  decisive  of  this  case.  You  will  recall  that  the  defendant  Scott  according  to  the  wit¬ 
nesses  was  here  at  those  times  walking  about  freely,  and  that  he  had  no  beard.  If  there 
are  any  two  facts  which  can  be  proved  in  this  case,  they  are  that  at,  these  times  mentioned 
Scott  had  a  full  beard  and  was  lame.  We  shall  introduce  a  number  of  witnesses  to  this 
point,  and  shall  we  think  satisfy  you  upon  it. 

There  are  two  other  incidental  features  of  the  government’s  evidence  to  which  perhaps 
I  ought  to  refer,  that  is,  the  evidence  of  the  detectives  as  to  the  plan,  and  burglars’  tools, 
and  to  the  expert  testimony  upon  the  handwriting. 

I  have  already  referred  to  detective  evidence,  and  to  the  fact  that  this  is  a  detective 
case.  If  I  were  talking  to  a  Northampton  jury  I  need  only  refer  to  what  is  known  as  the 
incendiary  trial.  In  that  case  it  was  said  by  one  of  the  legal  gentlemen  who  has  until  re¬ 
cently  sat  with  the  Attorneys  for  the  prosecution,  “they  have  found  rich  pastures  in 
Northampton.”  To  continue  in  this  suggestive  strain,  they  are  again  turned  loose  into 
the  rich  fields  of  our  valley.  They  are  paid  to  convict,  and  they  are  going  to  convict  if 
they  can.  And  the  tendency  of  a  detective’s  work  is  most  always  to  throw  mud.  They 
must  get  something  bad  about  these  men — as  they  think  they  must  about  the  witnesses — 
and  so  they  put  burglars’  tools  into  Scott’s  satchel,  and  a  plan  into  Dunlap’s  trunk.  We 
deny  it  all. 

You  enjoyed,  I  have  no  doubt,  as  we  enjoyed  yesterday  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Payne.  He 
is  a  positive  man.  He  has  been  a  witness  before  he  tells  us.  One  of  his  earliest  cases  was 
the  Howland  will  case.  Thirty-two  experts  testified  in  that  case.  Mr.  Payne  was  just  as 
positive  there.  “I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt,  he  said,”  that  the  signature  was  traced. 
Eminent  men,  among  them  such  names  as  Joseph  Willard,  an  expert  of  long  standing, 
Lowell  the  eminent  engraver  P  Agassis,  who  brought  to  the  case  his  acute  analytical  skill, 
with  others,  and  they  pronounced  the  signature  as  showing  no  signs  of  tracing.  This 
matter  of  handwriting  isn’t  a  thing  to  be  settled  without  doubt,  even  by  Mr.  Payne.  So 
uncertain  is  such  testimony  that  many  Courts  including  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
State’s  have  refused  to  receive  such  testimony  and  although  it  is  received  in  our  own  State 
for  what  it  is  worth,  yet  in  the  leading  case  (Moody  vs.  Rowell,  17  Pick.  497.)  Chief 
Justice  Shaw  says  :  “It  is  agreed  on  all  hands  that  such  evidence  is  generally  deserving  of 
very  little  consideration.”  It  is  really  a  matter  for  your  own  good  common  sense.  We 
shall  give  you  such  aid  as  we  can,  and  shall  confidently  ask  you  to  say  that  the  opinion 
given  isn’t  true  and  that  the  writing  is  not  that  of  the  defendants, 
j  There  is  one  other  matter  of  defense  of  which  you  will  probably  expect  me  to  speak. 

You  have  heard  it  intimated  doubtless  of  the  efforts  which  would  be  made  to  show  an 
j  alibi.  Ever  since  Dickens’  wrote,  this  it  has  been  a  favorite  subject  of  advice  and  com¬ 
ment.  An  honest  alibi  is  not  always  an  easy  thing  to  show.  It  would  be  very  likely  to 
puzzle  any  member  of  your  pannel  to  prove  where  he  was  on  a  particular  day  a  year  ago. 


42 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


It  is  not  an  easy  thing  to  do.  Of  course  it  would  be  easy  for  us  with  detective  assistance 
perhaps  to  produce  the  testimony  of  scores  of  witnesses  that  these  defendants  were  at  a 
ball,  or  at  some  public  place.  But  we  propose  to  bring  forward  no  such  testimony.  We 
have  evidence  as  to  the  whereabouts  of  the  defendants  at  the  material  times  testified  to, 
but  it  is  the  natural  and  ordinary  testimony  which  would  be  expected  in  an  honest  alibi. 
The  testimony  of  the  family,  of  those  who  happened  to  be  there  at  particular  times,  and  it 
is  our  good  fortune  to  have  the  testimony  of  one  witness  who  happened  to  be  there  on  busi¬ 
ness  the  very  day  this  robbery  occurred.  And  it  is  decisive. 

As  1  have  said  before  it  is  your  duty  to  reconcile  the  evidences  with  the  theory  of  inno¬ 
cence  if  you  can.  And  you  will  find  I  think  when  you  come  to  see  it  all  together, 
that  the  only  way  you  can  reconcile  it  is  in  this  way.  The  man  who  was  up  here  un¬ 
der  those  suspicious  circumstances  which  point  him  out  as  one  of  the  robbers,  (whom  Ed- 
son  says  was  one,)  cannot  have  been  Scott,  for  Scott  had  a  full  beard  and  was  lame  while 
this  man  had  a  smooth  face  and  no  trouble  with  his  walk  ;  that  these  men  so  seen  about 
here  so  much  resembled  the  defendants,  would  easily  account  for  the  mistake  of  the  Wliit- 
telsey  family  under  the  circumstances  of  that  night  ;  Edson’s  position,  his  nature,  his 
hope  of  reward  and  desire  for  revenge  easily  reconcile  his  statements  with  the  hypothesis 
of  innocence.  We  ask  you  to  take  the  evidence  as  it  comes  in,  then,  weigh  it  fairly  in 
connection  with  the  evidence  for  the  prosecution,  remembering  the  presumption  of  inuo- 
cence  which  is  a  constant  shield  to  the  defendants  and  the  burden  of  proof  by  which  it 
must  be  overcome,  and  above  all  things  we  ask  you  to  bring  to  the  consideration  a  fair 
and  impartial  judgment. 

Friday  Afternoon. 

The  entire  afternoon  was  spent  in  reading  depositions,  and  discussing  the  objections 
raised  on  either  side.  A  great  portion  of  the  time  was  spent*  in  discussing.  The  court 
room  was.  crowded  as  it  had  never  been  before,  much  the  larger  part  of  the  audience  being 
ladies.  There  did  not  seem  to  be  room  for  one  more  person.  The  weather  was  oppres¬ 
sively  warm,  and  much  discomfort  was  endured,  but  all  braved  it  through  to  the  end. 

The  first  deposition  offered  was  that  of  John  Berry,  alias  Meyers,  now  in  the  State 
prison  at  Auburn,  N.  Y.,  serving  out  a  sentence  for  attempting  to  rob  the  Second  Na¬ 
tional  Bank  of  Elmira,  N.  Y.,  in  1873.  After  reading  one  or  two  questions  and  answers, 
showing  that  Berry  was  giving  evidence  as  to  Edson’s  connection  with  that  attempted 
robbery,  the  government  objected  to  its  introduction,  and  the  objection  was  sustained,  on 
the  ground  that  the  proving  of  a  conspiracy  between  Edson  and  Berry  to  rob  banks,  could 
not  disprove  the  charge  of  a  conspiracy  between  Edson  and  Scott  and  Dunlap.  It  ap¬ 
peared  from  so  much  of  the  deposition  as  was  read,  that  Berry  refused  to  give  his  full  or 
real  name,  and  that  he  alleges  that  himself,  Edson  and  three  others  were  engaged  in  that 
robbery.  It  also  appeared,  from  remarks  of  defendants’  counsel,  that  they  expected  to 
prove  by  this  deposition  a  conspiracy  between  Edson,  Berry  and  parties  other  than  Scott 
and  Dunlap,  in  pursuance  of  which  the  attempt  on  the  Elmira  bank  was  made.  In  other 
words,  to  show  that  Edson’s  testimony  that  Scott  and  Dunlap  were  engaged  in  that  con¬ 
spiracy  was  false. 

The  second  deposition  was  that  of  J.  Jameson  Raphael  of  New  York,  bookkeeper  for, 
and  manager  of  the  estate  of  Joseph  Potter,  deceased.  The  estate  had  houses  to  rent, 
and  rented  one— No.  250  West  43d  street — to  a  family  by  the  name  of  Scott,  from  Sept. 
15,  1875,  to  Feb.  10  or  12,  1876,  when  they  moved  out  unexpectedly,  although  the  rent 
was  paid  in  advance  to  April.  He  did  not  know  the  man  Scott,  and  never  saw  him,  but 
had  been  informed  that  he  was  the  party  under  arrest  for  a  bank  burglary. 

The  next  deposition  was  that  of  Silas  D.  Herring,  of  the  firm  of  Herring  &  Co.,  safe 
manufacturers,  of  New  York.  The  firm  made  two  air  pumps  for  opening  safes,  from  a 
patent  taken  in  the  name  of  John  D.  Tarrell,  one  of  the  firm,  to  prevent  its  use  by  other 
parties.  The  pumps  were  kept  in  the  basement  of  Herring  &  Co.’s  store.  Edson  had 
been  employed  by  the  firm  as  traveling  salesman  from  1872  to  1874,  at  a  salary  of  #2,u00 
a  year,  and  from  1874  to  December,  1876,  at  a  salary  of  $2,400.  He  was  discharged  be¬ 
cause  it  did  not  pay  the  firm  to  keep  him.  A  telegram  was  sent  to  Edson  at  Bristol,  Ct., 
on  the  morning  after  the  robbery,  to  go  to  Northampton,  see  the  bank  people,  and  get  a 
certificate  from  them  attesting  to  the  value  of  the  lock.  It  was  then  believed  by  Herring 
&  Co.,  as  it  was  by  the  bank  officers,  that  the  vault  had  not  been  opened,  and  they  wanted 
a  certificate  ub  to  the  capacity  of  their  lock  to  resist  burglars.  Edson  was  directed  to  go 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


43 


to  Bristol  on  Jan.  25,  but  he  did  not  go  until  the  26th.  On  the  24th,  he  was  charged 
with  $50  on  the  books. 

The  next  deposition  was  that  of  Prof.  Jules  E.  Pstrokonsky,  a  Russian  music  teacher, 
52  years  old.  He  deposed  that  he  knew  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Scott.  Gave  Mrs.  Scott  lessons  in 
music  in  January  and  February,  1876  ;  gave  her  two  lessons  a  week,  on  Mondays  and 
Thursdays,  at  12  M.  Took  dinner  with  them  every  time  he  gave  a  lesson  in  those 
months.  Scott  was  there  at  dinner  every  day  I  was  there.  He  had  a  full  beard  all  the 
time  ;  “am  convinced  and  almost  certain  I  did  not  see  him  during  that  time  without  a 
full  beard.”  Saw  a  young  man  there  in  January,  1876,  apparently  a  boarder.  Did  not 
know  who  he  was.  Saw  Scott  there  just  before  they  moved  away.  Commenced  giving 
lessons  to  Mrs.  Scott  June  5,  1875.  Became  acquainted  with  her  at  Hall’s  music  store. 
Continued  to  give  her  lessons  until  May,  1876.  After  moving,  she  resided  at  207  West 
50th  street.  First  knew  Scott  in  December,  1875.  Never  knew  Scott’s  business.  Visited 
Mrs.  Scott  regularly  on  Mondays  and  Thursdays,  from  June,  1875,  to  May,  1876,  except 
one  or  two  days,  while  they  were  moving.  Scott  was  also  present,  to  the  best  of  my  recol¬ 
lection.  when  I  dined  there.  It  was  an  invariable  rule  for  me  to  dine  with  the  Scotts  on 
lesson  days.  Mrs.  Scott  spoke  to  me  about  going  to  Northampton  as  a  witness,  but  after¬ 
ward  said  it  would  not  be  necessary,  as  my  deposition  could  be  taken.  My  wife  keeps  a 
cigar  stand.  Scott  has  always  worn  a  full  beard  while  I  have  known  him.  Deponent 
slept  for  a  while  at  a  barber  shop. 

The  next  deposition  was  that  of  Mrs.  Eliza  Ballou,  65  years  of  age,  a  resident  of  New¬ 
ark,  N.  J.  In  the  winter  of  1876,  she  lived  on  West  50th  street,  New  York.  Knew 
Scott.  First  saw  him  in  March,  1876.  He  boarded  with  us  three  months.  It  was  “in 
March  or  thereabouts”  that  I  first  saw  him.  Here  the  government  objected  to  the  evi¬ 
dence  as  immaterial,  the  time  mentioned  being  indefinite  and  remote  from  the  time  of 
the  robbery.  The  defense  said  that  the  date  fixed  by  the  deposition  was  wrong,  and  they 
expected  to  correct  it  by  a  witness  present.  The  Judge  ruled  that  a  deposition  could  not 
be  changed  by  evidence,  and  then  used  as  evidence  ;  it  must  be  admitted  as  taken  and 
sworn  to,  or  not  at  all. 

At  this  point  there  was  considerable  talk  on  the  part  of  the  counsel.  The  defense  com¬ 
plained  that  the  court  shut  out  much  of  the  evidence  which  they  regarded  as  material. 
The  Judge  said,  “The  government  wouldn’t  get  anything  in,  if  I  sustained  all  of  your 
objections.” 

One  of  the  jurors  wanted  to  go  home  on  Saturday — said  it  would  be  $25  loss  to  him 
not  to  go.  The  Judge  said  he  could  not  postpone  the  trial  for  that  reason — he  didn’t 
know  but  he  would  give  more  than  that  sum  to  be  gone  himself.  When  he  got  hold  of  a 
tough  job,  he  wanted  to  finish  it  as  soon  as  possible.  He  declined  to  postpone  the  trial 
for  a  day,  and  decided  to  go  on  with  it  on  Saturday. 

Saturday— Sixth  Day. 

The  reading  of  the  deposition  of  Mrs.  Ballou  was  resumed.  She  deposed  that  Scott 
had  a  full  beard  while  at  her  house  in  March,  or  at  about  that  time — am  positive  of  it. 
He  devoted  his  time  to  study  while  with  us.  Learned  nothing  as  to  what  his  business 
was.  My  daughter  is  carrying  on  a  millinery  business  at  Newark,  in  my  name.  Mrs. 
Scott  has  no  interest  in  the  business.  There  were  several  other  boarders  when  Scott 
boarded  with  us. 

Patrick  McHugh.  This  witness  was  a  young  man,  who  said  he  tended  a  dog  and  bird 
bazar  at  No.  3  Green  street.  New  York.  Was  there  in  the  fall  of  ’75  and  winter  of  ’76. 
Saw  Scott  there  two  or  three  days  before  the  Christmas  of  1875.  He  came  to  buy  a  dog, 
but  made  no  purchase  then.  Came  again  December  31,  when  I  saw  and  talked  with  him. 
Saw  him  at  his  house  the  same  evening.  Went  there  to  take  a  dog  he  had  purchased. 
He  lived  at  250  West  40th  street,  in  a  two-story  house,  with  large  pillars  in  front.  I  en¬ 
tered  the  house  and  saw  Scott  there.  Saw  him  a  day  or  two  over  three  weeks  afterward, 
at  the  store,  when  he  brought  the  dog  back.  Did  not  see  him  after  that.  In  ten  or 
twelve  days,  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Scott  came  for  the  dog.  Know  this  by  the  charge  made  for 
the  dog’s  board.  This  was  in  February.  Scott  had  a  beard  when  I  saw  him  at  that  time 
(December,  January  and  February),  about  as  he  has  now  (full,  but  stout). 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Gillett.  Know  a  man  by  the  name  of  More.  First  saw  him 
here.  Do  not  know  Butcher  McCarty.  Work  for  Mr.  Dovey.  Had  not  seen  Scott  before 
the  Christmas  of  1875.  Sold  another  dog  that  day,  to  go  to  Pittsburg.  I  took  the  dog 


44  TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 

to  the  house  the  same  evening  the  sale  was  made.  Have  been  in  the  bird  and  dog  business 
six  years.  Am  confident  that  what  I  hare  stated  is  fact.  Mrs.  Scott  came  to  see  me 
about  this  evidence. 

In  answer  to  questions  by  Mr.  Bond,  witness  said  he  carried,  at  the  time  he  took  the 
dog  to  Scott’s,  a  bird  and  cage  to  another  party,  on  40th  street,  and  that  enables  me  to 
fix  this  date.  Think  Scott  lived  on  43d  street.  Am  not  positive  to  whiclr  street  I  took 
the  dog,  nor  to  which  street  I  took  the  bird  and  cage — may  have  got  them  mixed,  but 
took  the  dog  to  Scott’s. 

Miss  Amelia  Wood.  This  witness  is  a  good-looking  little  lady,  of  about  25  years, 
sister  of  Mrs.  Scott.  She  resides  at  Ellen ville,  N.  Y.,  and  lived  with  Mrs.  Scott  in 
New  York  in  the  fall  of  1875  and  the  winter  of  1876.  Went  there  in  July,  1875.  She 
lived  at  108  E.  24th  street.  I  lived  there  with  her  until  September,  then  moved  to  250 
W.  43d  street,  and  lived  there  one  month,  until  January  31st.  When  I  left,  they  were 
there.  The  family  consisted  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Scott,  Dunlap,  myself,  and  a  servant,  until 
after  Christmas.  Dunlap  was  in  poor  health.  I  thought  he  had  the  consumption. 
Sometimes  he  took  his  meals  with  the  family,  and  sometimes  they  were  sent  to  his  room. 
In  January,  1876,  Scott  was  not  away  from  the  house.  He  sprained  his  ankle  a  few  days 
after  New  Year’s,  and  was  not  able  to  be  away.  He  was  at  home  January  25  and  26. 
Dunlap  was  there,  and  had  his  meals.  Scott  had  a  beard  then — am  positive  of  it.  He 
could  not  go  out,  if  he  had  wanted  to,  on  account  of  his  sprained  ankle.  I  remember  that 
a  boy  brought  a  dog  to  the  house— a  New  Year’s  present  from  Mrs.  Scott. 

Cross-examined.  Went  to  Scott’s  in  July,  1875,  and  lived  there  until  January  31, 
1876.  Left  Grand  Rapids,  Mich.,  where  I  lived,  July  12,  and  think  I  must  have  arrived 
at  Scott’s  about  the  middle  of  July.  Scott  was  not  out  of  the  house  in  January,  1876, 
except  for  a  short  walk.  He  sprained  his  ankle  two  or  three  days  after  New  Year's,  and 
did  not  go  out,  except  to  walk  around  the  corner  ;  was  not  gone  over  an  hour.  Dunlap 
was  sick.  He  was  there  when  I  went  there.  I  did  not  see  him  much  at  first — was  not 
acquainted  with  him.  Knew  he  was  not  well.  In  October  he  was  taking  cod  liver  oil. 
Had  no  talk  with  him  about  his  health.  Do  not  know  that  Scott  and  Dunlap  had  a  phy¬ 
sician,  or  consulted  one.  I  was  employed  at  upholstering  by  Kurtz  &  Bro. ,  Broadway.  I 
am  older  than  Mrs.  Scott. 

The  next  witness  was  Prof.  William  J.  Ncevius,  of  New  York,  teacher  of  the  academic 
branches,  history,  arithmetic,  geometry,  and  rhetoric,  a  man  of  50  or  55  years,  having  a 
marked  individuality.  He  announced  at  the  outset  that  his  name  Naevius  was  pronounced 
the  same  as  the  Naevius  spoken  of  in  the  Second  Epistle  of  Horace.  Mr.  Gillett  said  to 
the  witness  that  he  made  a  mistake  in  pronouncing  the  word  Epistle  ;  it  was  not  Epistel. 
The  Professor  was  somewhat  disconcerted  at  this  recognition  of  his  literary  acquirements. 
Witness  now  resides  in  Brooklyn,  but  for  twenty-five  years  lived  in  New  York,  and  on 
one  street  13  years.  I  met  Scott  on  the  22d  of  March,  1876.  He  took  lessons  of  me,  and 
to  my  best  recollection,  had  just  such  a  bearft  then  as  he  has  now.  Saw  Scott  about  five 
times  a  week  from  that  time  until  the  middle  of  June.  In  the  last  of  May,  I  noticed  that 
he  had  shaved.  He  manifested  serious  indications  of  lameness.  When  he  came  to  take 
lessons  of  me  he  would  take  off  his  shoe  and  rest  his  lame  foot  on  a  chair. 

Cross-examined.  After  he  had  shaved,  I  think  he  wore  a  moustache.  I  was  called 
upon  as  to  my  being  a  witness,  by  Mrs.  Scott,  about  three  weeks  ago. 

Miss  Rose  Ballou,  of  Newark,  N.  J.,  daughter  of  the  Mrs.  Ballou  who  gave  her  de¬ 
position.  In  the  winter  of  1876  I  resided  on  50th  street.  N.  Y.,  with  my  mother.  First 
saw  Scott  February  12,  1876,  when  he  called  at  my  mother’s  to  procure  board.  Saw  him 
three  times  that  day.  I  went  to  his  house,  250  W.  43d  street.  There  saw  Mr.  Potter, 
the  owner  of  the  house.  Scott  came  to  our  house  to  board  ;  saw  him  afterward  every 
day.  He  had  a  full  beard,  heavier  than  the  one  he  wears  now,  and  noticed  his  lameness, 
and  that  he  had  shaved  during  the  last  of  May  or  first  of  June.  Remarked  upon  it  at  the 
time. 

Cross-examined.  My  age  is  27  years.  I  took  charge  of  the  house.  I  first  saw  Scott 
February  1,  1876,  when  my  mother  and  myself  were  present.  Then  I  went  to  his  house. 
Had  friends  living  in  that  street  at  that  time.  We  had  4  or  5  boarders.  Mr.  Schoff 
boarded  there;  also,  Mrs.  Willis  and  her  daughter.  Talked  with  Mr.  More  about  this 
case.  I  boarded  at  his  mother-in-law’s  house  one  year,  until  last  April.  Am  in  the 
millinery  business  now.  Paid  $10  a  week  for  board  of  my  mother  and  mv*elf.  from 
money  raised  by  mortgaging  my  property.  Mother  paid  the  rent.  Some  of  the  bills  are 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


45 


unpaid — Butchers’,  grocers’,  and  rent  bills.  Quit  keeping  house  in  March,  and  took  a 
room  in  18th  street,  near  2d  avenue,  for  three  weeks — near  house  of  Sec.  Fish.  Went 
from  there  to  12th  street,  and  lived  there  two  weeks,  and  then  went  to  119  W.  23d 
street.  Do  not  know  Connors.  Went  to  Newark  in  April  last.  Raised  some  money 
on  property  in  Sterling,  Ill.,  given  me  by  my  sister.  Seen  More  several  times  in 
Newark.  At  one  time  I  took  charge  of  a  gentleman’s  house  for  the  board  of  my 
mother  and  myself,  for  two  weeks.  Had  some  money  left  from  keeping  boarders. 

Marcus  A.  Decker,  of  136  E.  113th  street,  N.  Y. ,  am  a  piano-tuner  for  12  years. 
In  the  fall  of  1875,  was  connected  with  Decker  &  Bro.,  piano  dealers,  the  firm  con¬ 
sisting  of  my  father  and  uncle.  On  December  14,  1875,  we  sold  Mrs.  Scott  a  piano 
on  installments.  I  was  at  Scott’s  house  in  January,  1876,  collecting  the  dues  on  the 
piano  ;  was  there  on  the  15th  and  on  the  25th,  as  shown  by  receipts  which  I  gave, 
and  which  are  now  in  the  possession  of  Mrs.  Scott.  On  the  25th,  found  in  the  bouse 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Scott,  and  Dunlap.  Was  there  at  nine  o’clock  that  evening.  Was  at 
the  house  the  next  night.  Saw  Scott  and  Dunlap  there  then.  I  was  playing  on  the 
piano  and  broke  a  string,  which  Mrs.  Scott  seemed  to  feel  very  badly  about,  as  she 
was  to  take  a  lesson  on  Thursday.  I  was  there  the  next  night,  and  saw  Scott  and 
Dunlap  there.  Called  there  on  my  way  up  from  Bleeker  street,  and  stopped  for  dinner. 
Arrived  there  between  6  and  7,  and  repaired  the  string.  Scott  and  Dunlap  were  there. 
Scott  had  a  beard  on  the  25th  and  26th,  a  little  longer  than  his  beard  is  now.  Have 
never  seen  him  without  a  beard.  Have  known  him  four  years.  Seen  him  in  Winters. 
Saw  him  January  15,  in  the  morning.  He  had  a  beard  then.  He  was  lame  on  the 
26th  ;  knew  it,  because  when  I  repaired  the  piano-string  he  was  in  my  way.  Of  this 
I  am  positive.  Took  dinner  with  him  on  the  26th. 

Cross-examined.  The  firm  of  Decker  &  Bro.,  has  been  out  of  existence  a  year.  I  am 
working  now  for'  my  uncle  ;  do  inside  tuning.  There  was  a  lawsuit  between  Decker  & 
Bro.  and  Decker  Bros,  as  to  which  should  use  the  name.  Saw  Scott  once  or  twice  a 
week  about  four  years  ago,  at  my  house.  Never  saw  Connors.  Did  not  see  Scott  during 
the  summer.  Next  saw  him  in  1876,  when  he  came  to  my  store  on  Bleeker  street.  That 
was  January  14,  1876.  Rented  Mrs.  Scott  a  piano,  which  she  has  now.  Do  not  know 

that  it  is  paid  for.  The  piano  sold  him  in  1873  has  been  paid  for.  I  frequently 

run  into  Scott’s  to  dine  and  lunch.  In  1873  I  learned  that  Scott  and  his 

wife  were  married.  Saw  Mrs.  S.  at  my  store  just  after  May;  also  saw  her  a  couple 

of  months  afterward  ;  did  not  see  her  frequently  previous  to  her  marriage.  Lunched 
at  Scott’s  November  half  a  dozen  times,  after  the  others  were  through.  Scott  was 
lame  on  January  14.  Mrs.  Scott  was  a  favorite  in  my  mother’s  family,  and  used  to 
call  there  frequently. 

At  this  point,  half  past  12,  the  matter  of  adjournment  was  brought  up.  Mr.  Gillett 
stated  that  he  had  an  engagement  on  Monday  in  a  case  that  had  already  been  postponed 
once.  Mr.  Leonard  said  he  was  willing  to  assent  to  the  wishes  of  Mr.  Gillett,  and  the 
Judge  ordered  an  adjournment  of  the  court  to  Tuesday,  July  24  at  10  o’clock. 

Tuesday— Seventh  Day. 

An  hour  before  the  assembling  of  the  court,  this  morning,  the  crowd  began  to  gather 
in  front  of  the  court-house,  and  for  an  hour  blocked  up  the  walk  for  a  distance  of  several 
rods.  When  the  court  opened,  at  ten  o’clock,  the  court-room  was  crowded  to  its  greatest 
capacity,  about  one-half  the  audience  consisting  of  ladies,  of  whom  a  considerable  portion 
were  young  girls.  Mrs.  Scott  and  Miss  Ballou,  witnesses  for  the  defense,  were  seated  near 
the  witness  stand. 

Mr.  Bond  called  upon  the  witness  Decker  to  identify  the  contract  msde  between  Decker 
and  Mrs.  Scott  in  December,  1875,  for  the  piano,  and  also  the  receipts  given  for  the 
payments  made,  including  those  given  on  Jan.  15th  and  25th,  and  them  offered  them  in 
evidence.  Mr.  Gillett  objected  to  the  admission  of  the  receipts,  and  the  court  ruled 
them  out. 

Silas  S.  Packard.  I  have  charge  of  a  business  college  in  New  York,  formerly  Bryant 
&  Stratton’s.  Have  had  charge  of  it  for  18  years,  and  had  more  or  less  to  do  with  hand¬ 
writings  for  30  years,  Have  published  works  on  penmanship.  Mr.  Packard  gave  it  as 
his  opinion  that  the  order  written  by  Scott  to  Detective  Franklin  when  he  was  arrested. 


46 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


and  the  directions  on  the  letters  written  to  the  bank  respecting  negotiations  for  the  return 
of  the  securities,  were  not  written  by  the  same  person,  as  Payne  the  expert  had  testified 
to,  and  gave  his  reasons  for  that  opinion  at  considerable  length.  Witness  also  thought 
the  telegram  sent  from  Wilkesbarre  and  signed  by  R.  C.  Hill,  was  not  written  by  Dunlap, 
judging  by  his  signature  to  the  order.  On  cross-examination,  witness  said  the  superscrip¬ 
tions  on  the  letters  were  in  a  disguised  hand,  but  the  body  of  the  order  (written  by  Scott) 
and  the  signature  of  Dunlap  to  the  order  (written  by  Dunlap)  were  disguised.  Mr. 
Gillett  pointed  out  certain  letters  in  the  different  writings,  and  the  witness  admitted  that 
there  was  in  them  a  similarity  ;  in  some  it  was  marked.  I  have  been  twice  a  witness  in 
cases  involving  handwritings,  but  testified  only  once. 

Julius  Davis,  of  311  Broome  street,  New  York,  a  Jew,  was  sworn  with  his  hat  on. 
Been  in  this  country  13  or  14  years.  Have  known  Scott  3  or  4  years.  Have  done  work 
for  him.  In  Jauuary,  1876,  altered  a  dress  coat  to  a  swallow  tail.  Mrs.  Scott  came  down 
for  me,  and  I  went  up  to  the  house.  Carried  the  coat  back  on  Feb.  7th.  Did  some  work 
for  another  man  at  Scott’s.  Took  both  garments  back  on  Feb.  7th,  my  birthday.  Mr. 
Scott  gave  me  a  cane  at  that  time.  Mrs.  Scott  came  for  me  on  a  Sunday,  and  I  went  on 
the  next  Monday.  Scott  had  a  beard  at  that  time — beard  was  a  little  bigger  than  it  is 
now. 

Cross-examined.  Have  done  work  for  Scott  3  or  4  years,  and  done  business  for  him. 
Made  no  clothing  for  him,  only  repairing.  Been  to  his  house  on  43d  street  several  times, 
more  than  five  times.  It  was  in  February  that  I  carried  the  clothes  back.  The  first  time 
I  went  to  his  house  he  lived  in  Brooklyn.  Canuot  tell  the  street.  Do  not  know  the 
street.  Went  there  only  once  while  he  lived  in  Brooklyn.  The  next  time  I  went,  he 
lived  in  New  Yrork,  at  East  1 7th  street.  Went  there  four  or  five  times.  The  next  time 
I  went,  he  lived  on  43d  street.  Scott  never  gave  a  present  before.  Mrs.  Scott’s  mother 
and  my  wife  are  sisters.  I  have  been  intimate  with  Scott’s  family,  aivl  know  Mrs.  Scott 
since  she  was  a  girl.  Saw  Scott  on  Feb.  7th,  on  the  second  floor.  When  I  took  them  from 
him  he  was  up  stairs.  Do  not  employ  any  hands.  My  room  is  in  the  basement.  Do  not 
remember  what  day  it  was  when  I  took  the  clothes  back.  It  was  half  past  seven  in  the 
evening.  Saw  Mrs.  Scott  then. 

In  reply  to  Mr.  Bond,  witness  said  he  could  not  tell  whether  Dunlap  was  the  man  he 
saw  there  or  not,  but  he  thought  he  was.  Questioned  by  Mr.  Gillett  :  It  was  dark  when 
I  took  the  clothes  from  the  house,  and  I  could  not  see  who  the  man  was. 

Deputy  Sheriffs  Potter  and  Munyan  testified  that  they  had  never  noticed  any  shrug  of 
Scott's  shoulders  since  they  had  been  guarding  the  prisoners  at  the  jail.  Munyan  has 
been  on  guard  there  every  day  since  soon  after  they  were  brought  to  the  jail,  and  Potter 
has  been  there  more  or  less. 

Close  of  the  Defense. 

At  this  point,  11.15  this  A.  M.,  the  defense  closed  very  unexpectedly.  The  multitude 
had  expected  that  Mrs.  Scott  would  be  put  upon  the  stand,  and  great  was  their  disap¬ 
pointment. 

Decker,  recalled.  Went  to  43d  street  half  a  dozen  times  in  January,  to  buy  pianos  of 
Schaffer.  Sold  50  to  75  pianos  a  year.  Name  of  my  firm  Decker  A  B  .other.  That  firm 
continued  8  or  10  years.  The  old  firm  was  Decker  Brothers.  The  name  of  the  firm  was 
put  on  the  front  of  the  piano.  Did  not  manufacture  the  pianos.  Had  a  right  to  put  it 
there.  Witness  referred  to  a  book,  which  Mr.  Gillett  had,  containing  a  letter  written  by 
witness.  Letter  was  written  for  him  to  sign,  and  he  signed  it.  Witness  was  asked  what 
right  he  had  to  put  the  name  of  Decker  Brothers  on  the  pianos  sold  by  Decker  &  Bro. 
I  said  in  the  letter  I  had  no  right  to  put  the  name  of  Decker  Bros,  on  the  pianos  I  sold. 
I  was  not  arrested  for  that ;  never  was  arrested  for  any  offense  or  any  charge.  I  never 
manufactured  pianos.  A  part  of  the  answer  I  put  into  that  suit  was  true,  and  a  part 
untrue.  Have  been  in  attendance  here  two  weeks.  Mrs.  Scott  was  here  last  week  also, 
and  Mr.  Moore.  Miss  Ballou  here,  too,  and  “that  Professor,  whose  name  is  inscribed  in 
Horace.”  Was  here  when  the  first  case  closed.  Our  firm  gave  no  pianos  to  any  one. 
Gave  none  to  any  one.  My  name  was  on  the  pay-roll  of  the  secret  service.  Was  paid  $3 
a  day.  My  father  got  my  name  there.  Col.  Whiteley  and  Mr.  Nettleship  had  pianos,  but 
paid  for  them.  They  may  have  had  some  influence  in  getting  my  name  on  the  pay-roll. 
They  were  tried  for  the  safe  burglary  in  Washington.  Never  heard  that  these  two  men 
were  kicked  out  of  office. 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


47 


Stunning  Evidence  for  the  Prosecution. 

Maggie  Emerich.  German  servant  girl.  Live  in  Tremont  Center,  Sullivan  County, 
N.  Y.;  know  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Scott.  Lived  in  their  family  February  7,  1876.  Went  there 
February  7,  and  lived  there  six  days,  until  February  12.  I  recognize  Mr.  Scott  ;  the  man 
who  sits  beside  him  (Dunlap)  I  also  recognize ;  his  name  is  Barton.  Saw  Scott  the  day  1 
went  there  ;  saw  him  at  breakfast  ;  he  came  there  the  evening  before.  Saw  him  February 
8,  at  about  9  P.  M.  Scott,  Barton  and  Connors  came  to  dinner  together.  -Saw  Connors 
Thursday  morning.  He  rang  the  door-bell  ;  I  went  to  the  door  and  let  him  in.  I  knocked 
on  Scott’s  door  and  told  him  Billy  was  there.  Connors  went  into  Scott’s  room.  There 
was  a  sudden  breaking  up  of  the  family.  Scott  was  out  this  Friday  evening.  Barton  was 
at  home.  I  saw  both  some  part  of  the  day  in  the  morning  ;  they  went  out  after  zinc 
trunks.  Friday,  Mrs.  Scott  came  down  and  asked  me  to  help  her  pack,  as  she  had 
trouble  about  the  house  and  was  going  to  move.  I  helped  her  pack  to  the  last  moment. 
Barton  was  in  the  room  while  we  were  packing  ;  Barton  and  Scott  packed  on  the  floor 
Barton  slept  on.  Some  zinc  trunks  were  brought  in  ;  I  can’t  say  how  many.  Scott  was 
not  lame  that  week.  I  noticed  him  frequently  ;  I  never  noticed  him  lame  while  I  was 
there.  I  don’t  know  what  Billy  did  with  them.  Mrs.  Scott  engaged  me  for  a  month. 
Mr.  Scott  had  no  beard  while  I  was  there,  only  a  moustache.  He  was  not  there  when  I 
went  there,  but  came  on  Thursday.  Connors  was  a  stout  man,  tall,  with  a  moustache 
and  a  burned  mark  on  his  cheek  ;  he  wore  a  tall  hat,  and  had  a  yellow  cane.  Scott  paid 
the  rent  when  they  left,  to  a  man  in  his  room  ;  no  lady  was  there  at  the  time  ;  Miss  Ballou 
was  not  there  ;  I  never  saw  her  ;  Barton  was  not  sick  ;  I  never  heard  anything  of  his  being 
sick.  There  was  no  cross-examination. 

Mrs.  Mary  McKeever,  another  German  servant  girl.  I  worked  for  Mr.  anc^  Mrs.  Scott 
in  the  latter  part  of  January  and  beginning  of  February,  1876.  I  have  seen  Scott 
and  Barton  before  ;  I  saw  Scott  the  first  night  I  went  there,  in  the  dining-room  ; 
there  was  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Scott,  Mr.  Barton,  and  Miss  Wood.  She  was  there  half  a  day, 
and  went  away  the  day  I  came,  and  I  stayed  there  a  month  and  five  days.  I  saw 
Maggie  there  the  Sunday  after  I  went  there.  I  stayed  four  days  after  she  came.  I 
didn’t  stop  there.  I  saw  Scott  and  Barton  almost  every  day.  Scott  was  not  lame  and 
Barton  was  not  in  ill  health.  A  gentleman  named  Connors  used  to  call.  I  used  to 
see  him  every  morning  ;  I  never  was  in  the  room  to  hear  what  they  had  to  say.  When 
he  first  called  he  told  me  to  tell  Mr.  Scott  that  Billy  wanted  to  see  him  ;  he  went 
into  the  back  parlor  where  they  slept ;  'recognize  this  photograph  ;  that  is  Mr. 
Connors  ;  this  one  is  of  Mrs.  Scott  ;  Mr.  Scott  only  had  a  moustache  at  that  time. 
While  I  was  there  Scott  was  home  almost  every  day.  I  missed  him  from  the  house 
from  Saturday  night  until  Wednesday  evening,  when  I  let  him  in.  No  cross-examina¬ 
tion. 

Edson,  recalled  Asked  if  he  ever  heard  Scott  explain  why  he  left  his  house  in  43d 
street.  Said  Scott  told  him  on  the  night  of  Tuesday  following  the  visit  to  Springfield 
with  Connors,  that  had  he  known  as  much  then  as  now,  he  would  not  have  moved,  as  lie 
was  afraid  they  would  find  him  through  the  gas  office.  When  he  came  to  pay  his  bill, 
however,  he  found  they  had  his  name  wrong,  and  there  was  no  danger. 

Detective  Pinkerton ,  recalled.  (Shown  a  letter.)  Have  you  seen  this  letter  before  ; 
got  it  from  Mrs.  Scott,  at  her  house  on  Washington  Place.  She  said  it  was  her  husband's. 
(Letter  excluded.) 

L.  B.  Williams,  recalled.  I  heard  Maggie’s  description  of  Connors.  Was  asked  what 
sort  of  a  looking  man  Connors  was,  and  the  question  was  ruled  out. 

Tuesday  Afternoon. 

Mr.  Gillett  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  account  book  of  the  Polish  music- 
teacher,  who  gave  Mrs.  Scott  lessons,  does  not  show  that  he  was  at  Scott’s  house  at  any 
time  in  January  1876.  Cashier  Whittelsey,  recalled,  testified  that  at  the  preliminary 
examination  evidence  was  given  as  to  Scott’s  shrug.  Serena,  the  New  York  coachman, 
recalled,  testified  that  Miss  Rose  Ballon  rode  out  with  Mr.  Scott  in  the  fall  of  1874.  This 
was  a  square  contradiction  of  Miss  Ballou,  who,  being  recalled  by  the  defense,  denied 
Serena’s  statement  with  groat  indignation  and  scorn. 

This  closed  the  evidence  on  both  sides,  and  at  half  past  two  Mr.  Leonard  commenced 
his  argument,  speaking  two  hours  and  forty-five  minutes. 


48 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


Argument  of  Hon.  N.  A.  Leonard,  of  Springfield,  for  the  Defense. 

May  it  please  your  Honor,  and  you  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury  : 

None  of  you  can  appreciate  the  reluctance  with  which  I  entered  into  the  defense  of  this 
suit.  I  was  applied  to  within  twelve  working  hours  of  the  time  that  the  case  was  set 
down  for  a  hearing.  I  was  almost  entirely  ignorant  of  the  evidence  upon  the  one  side 
and  the  other,  and  I  confess  I  had  so  far  imbibed  the  public  prejudice  against  these  un¬ 
fortunate  defendants  as  to  disqualify  me  for  a  seat  upon  that  panel.  But  I  was  appealed 
to  in  behalf  oftwo  young  men  who  had  involved  in  the  hazard  of  this  trial  all  that  was 
precious  for  good  and  hopeful  in  their  lives.  They  had  been  deserted  by  their  senior 
counsel  ;  they  stood  convicted  at  the  bar  of  this  court  of  another  great  crime,  and  they 
were  to  be  tried  again  by  a  jury  drawn  from  a  community  where  they  thought  every  man’s 
hand  and  every  man’s  face  was  against  them.  And  I  should  have  been  false  to  my  own 
feelings,  I  should  have  dishonored  the  profession  to  which  I  belong,  if  I  had  not  promised 
that,  as  far  as  was  in  my  power,  they  should  have  a  fair  trial  and  a  patient  hearing.  I 
thought  I  could  promise  in  behalf  of  this  court  and  His  Honor  who  presides  over  it,  and 
of  you  who  were  to  fill  this  panel,  that,  at  least,  they  should  have  a  fair  and  impartial 
trial  ;  and  that  your  judgment  should  be  a  shield,  protecting  them  until,  beyond  a  rea¬ 
sonable  doubt,  their  guilt  was  established  by  abundant  and  b}  honest  testimony. 

There  is  no  doubt,  gentlemen,  that  Mr.  Whittelsey’s  house  was  broken  into  on  the 
night  of  the  25th  of  January,  1876.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  scene  which  he  describes, 
and  which  the  others  describe,  as  having  taken  place  there,  actually  occurred.  But  the 
government  charges  upon  these  two  men  that  they  wrere  present  and  participated  in  that 
burglary.  Of  this  they  are  to  satisfy  you  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.  The  degree  of 
proof  is  to  be  measured  something  by  the  penalty  which  follows  conviction.  The  penalty 
is  the  severest  known  to  our  laws,  for  it  is  imprisonment  for  life.  This  terrible  issue  is 
now  upon  your  consciences  for  decision,  and  from  your  judgment  there  is  no  appeal.  As 
jurors,  as  citizens,  as  Christians,  it  is  your  right,  it  is  your  duty,  to  require  of  the  govern¬ 
ment  that  they  shall  prove  the  truth  of  their  charges  beyond  a  reasouable  doubt  by 
adequate,  by  plain,  by  abundant  testimony,  so  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  left  upon  your 
minds  now,  or  to  vex  your  consciences  in  the  future.  Have  the  government  done  this  ? 
At  the  very  threshold  of  the  argument  I  put  it  to  you,  as  to  your  first  impressions,  have 
the  government  borne  the  burden  and  carried  the  conviction  to  your  consciences  and  to 
you  hearts  by  which  you  may  give  a  satisfactory  verdict  in  its  favor  ?  The  govern¬ 
ment,  gentlemen,  have  produced  here  two  classes  of  witnesses.  One  is  the  accomplice 
Edson,  and  the  other  comes  from  the  family  of  Mr.  Whittelsey,  and  a  few  other  stray  wit¬ 
nesses  that  have  been  pikced  np  iu  this  and  the  neighboring  county. 

I  pass  by,  for  the  present,  the  worthless  testimony  of  the  worthless  Edson,  and  I  shall 
ask  you  to  consider,  in  the  first  place,  the  testimony  that  has  been  produced  here  by  Mr. 
Whittelsey  and  his  family,  by  Mr.  Holt,  by  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Crafts,  by  Mr.  Mantor,  and  one 
or  two  others.  This  crime  which  we  are  trying  was  committed  iu  January,  1876.  Thir¬ 
teen  months  afterwards,  these  two  prisoners,  now  at  the  bar,  were  arrested.  Their  arrest 
was  heralded  all  over  the  country,  by  every  avenue  that  popular  opinion  is  reached  or  pub¬ 
lic  prejudice  is  made  ;  and  every  effort  made  to  fix  that  prejudice  upon  these  men  as  the 
guilty  parties.  They  were  brought  here  to  Northampton.  Every  man,  every  woman, 
and  every  child,  of  this  town,  whom  curiosity  or  interest  might  provoke,  were  invited  to 
examine  them.  If  they  had  ever  been  in  this  town,  either  in  the  day  or  in  the  night 
time,  they  would  have  been  in  their  ordinary  dress,  walking  without  fear  through  your 
streets  and  entering  your  shops.  Covering  over  a  period  of  six  months  that  has  been 
mentioned  as  the  preparation  for  this  burglary,  and  yet,  gentlemen,  in  the  whole  town  of 
Northampton  there  was  not  a  man  or  woman  to  be  found  who  could  say  upon  his  or  her 
conscience  that  their  eyes  ever  rested  upon  them  before.  If  there  was  to  be  identification 
from  impartial  and  unconcerned  witnesses,  it  was  an  entire  failure.  But  it  becomes  es¬ 
sential  to  their  conviction,  and  to  secure  the  large  reward  that  was  offered  for  their  con¬ 
viction,  that  identification  should  be  complete. 

It  was  then  determined  that  Mr.  Whittelsey  should  be  brought  forward.  Mr.  Whit¬ 
telsey,  is  an  honest  man,  and  it  was  thought  that  he  and  his  family  could  complete  the 
work  which  none  other  would  undertake.  Mr.  W  hittelsey,  it  was  arranged,  was  to  go  to 
the  jail  for  the  purpose  of  identifying  these  men.  He  and  his  family  talked  it  over,  and, 
under  the  protection  and  the  guide  of  the  officers,  they  were  to  go  to  the  jail  to  identify 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


49 


these  men'by  their  voices.  They  started  with  no  other  idea.  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Whittelsey, 
Mrs.  Page  and  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Cutler  and  the  servant,  under  the  guidance  of  the  ever  pres¬ 
ent  and  ever  active  Pinkerton,  started  to  the  jail  with  the  purpose  of  identifying  these 
people  by  their  voices.  Mr.  Whittelsey  went  with  his  paper  and  his  pencil  in  hand,  gen¬ 
tlemen.  It  was  pre-ordained  that  he  should  identify  them.  It  was  written  out  as  his 
purpose,  when  he  stood  with  pencil  and  paper  in  his  hand,  that  he  was  to  identify  them 
by  the  words  which  he  was  to  take  down.  Of  course,  they  identified  them.  Why,  the 
whole  attempt  would  have  been  a  failure,  the  whole  scheme  would  have  fallen  to  the 
ground,  Mr.  Whittelsey’s  paper  and  Mr.  Whittelsey’s  pencil  would  have  been  useless,  if 
he  did  not  recognize  them  by  their  voices,  because  every  other  plan  of  identification  had 
failed.  But  did  he  do  it  ?  Did  he  do  it,  gentlemen  ?  He  tells  you  he  did.  And,  gen¬ 
tlemen,  Mr.  Whittelsey  is  an  upright  and  conscientious  man,  and  he  was  not  satisfied 
then,  nor  do  I  believe  he  is  satisfied  now,  that  he  identified  them.  He  tells  you  that  the 
first  time  he  did,  but  he  went  there  again  and  again.  He  tells  you  that  he  went  there  the 
next  day  and,  I  think,  the  day  after  ;  and  that  he  went  finally  for  the  purpose,  as  he  says, 
of  strengthening  his  opinion  and  his  statement,  because  he  was  not  satisfied  ;  that  he 
might  listen  to  them  in  order  to  make  sure  he  had  identified  them,  or  to  quiet  the  admo¬ 
nitions  of  his  own  conscience  that  he  was  taking  more  upon  himself  than  he  ought  to  take. 
How  about  Mrs.  Whittelsey  ?  She  claims  to  identify  their  voices.  How  about  Mrs. 
Page  ?  She  comes  to  you  with  a  woman’s  reason  and  with  a  woman's  prejudice,  and  she 
says,  “I  thought  and  I  felt  that  that  was  Scott’s  voice.”  You  see  her  feelings  ran  ahead 
of  her  judgment.  Her  judgment  followed  her  feelings,  and  when  she  thought  that  that 
was  Scott’s  voice,  and  went  there  with  those  feelings  in  her  heart,  she  could  hear  no  other 
voice  than  the  one  she  imagined  she  heard  that  night  in  her  room. 

Now,  gentlemen,  let  us  look  a  little  at  this.  If  Scott  was  there  on  the  night  of  Janu¬ 
ary  25th,  or  if  any  other  man  was  there  and  talking  to  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Whittelsey  and  Mrs. 
Page,  you  may  rest  assured  that  they  were  not  addressing  them  in  their  ordinary  voices. 
If  they  came  there  that  night,  they  were  under  strong  excitement  and  great  passion,  and 
we  know  that  passion  and  excitement  engraft  themselves  upon,  and  express  themselves  in 
the  human  voice.  They  were  there  with  their  voices  covered  up  and  smothered  up  under 
the  masks  they  wore,  some  of  them  had  mouth-pieces  cut  in  them,  and  some  of  them  did 
not.  When  they  heard  Scott,  they  did  not  know  the  man  that  addressed  them  in  his 
strong  passion  and  in  his  might  on  that  night  of  January  25.  They  heard  a  man  confined 
in  your  jail,  appealing  to  the  officers  for  a  favor.  Hope,  if  he  was  guilty,  had  gone  out  of 
his  heart.  The  firmness  of  his  tones  had  disappeared  from  his  voice,  and  I  tell  you,  it  is 
preposterous  for  us  to  suppose  that  the  strong,  passionate  voice  of  the  night  of  January 
25,  1876,  smothered  under  the  masks,  could  have  been  detected  in  the  persuasive,  in  the 
imploring,  in  the  subdued,  voice  That  was  asking  of  the  officers  that  held  them  in  prison, 
for  a  favor. 

Now,  how  in  fact  did  Mrs.  Page  feel  about  these  men  ?  We  know  how  Mr.  Whittelsey 
felt.  We  know  that  after  he  assures  you  that  he  recognized  that  voice  he  went  there 
again  and  again  an  unsatisfied  man.  How  did  Mrs.  Whittelsey  and  Mrs.  Page  talk 
about  it  in  their  private  conversations  at  home  P  Mr.  Whittelsey  tells  you  that  they  were 
not  positive  about  it  ;  that  they  were  not  so  positive,  and  yet  Mrs.  Page  comes  here 
under  the  pressure  and  excitenrent  of  this  trial  and  tells  you  that  she  thinks  and  feels  that 
is  Scott’s  voice,  but  in  the  privacy  and  confidence  of  their  domestic  life  at  home,  they  dis¬ 
cussed  it,  and  Mrs.  Page  expressed  the  doubts  which  she  had.  Now,  gentlemen,  how 
much  does  this  sort  of  testimony  weigh  in  your  minds  ?  How  much  weight,  in  view  of  the 
importance  which  this  case  is  to  these  two  young  men,  are  you  going  to  give  to  the  recollec¬ 
tions  of  the  voices  spoken  under  those  circumstances  and  carried  in  the  minds  or  the  fan¬ 
cies  of  these  people  for  more  than  a  year  ?  And,  too,  as  that  voice  was  in  its  strong  pas¬ 
sion,  and  its  smothered  tones,  repeated  as  they  think  it  was  in  the  imploring  accents  of 
the  prisoner  in  his  cell.  Try  it  by  your  own  experience.  Put  to  it  the  test  that  my  broth¬ 
er  Bond  gave  you  last  week.  Recollect,  if  you  please,  those  men  that  came  upon  the 
stand  for  jurymen  and  were  challenged  one  after  another,  and  tell  me  if  you  can  remem¬ 
ber  and  discriminate  their  voices.  What  sort  of  a  voice  has  Scott  now  ?  You  heard  him 
the  other  day.  What  sort  of  a  voice  has  Dunlap  now  ?  That  you  surely  remember  and 
carry  in  your  recollection  as  he  challenged  the  men  or  admitted  them  to  the  panel  who 
[  are  to  sit  upon  his  life.  Does  one  of  you  remember  the  tones  of  his  voice  ?  Does  one  of 
you  remember  the  tones  in  which  he  announced  his  choice  of  men  for  this  panel  last 


50 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


week,  and  can  you  tell  what  they  were,  or  would  you  be  able  to  recognize  them  thirteen 
months  afterwards  when  he  should  be  speaking  in  the  calmness  and  quiet  in  which  he  has 
a  right  to  be  able  to  speak  ?  Which  of  you,  gentlemen,  would  know  my  natural  voice,  and 
would  recognize  it  ?  You  have  heard  me  here  in  this  court-room,  speak  under  the  excite¬ 
ment  which  a  trial  always  produces  ?  Which  of  you  gentlemen  knows  my  ordinary  conver¬ 
sational  voice,  and  with  what  tones  I  should  turn  to  a  man  asking  from  him  a  favor  ?  I 
venture  to  say,  gentlemen,  that  to-morrow  morning,  if  I  was  locked  in  an  adjoining  room, 
and  you  were  asked  to  recognize  my  conversational  tone  of  voice,  not  one  of  you  from 
hearing  me  here  in  the  excitement  of  this  trial,  would  recoguize  my  ordinary  conversa¬ 
tional  tones  ;  and  would  you  confirm  and  corroborate  the  testimony  of  Edson  by  the  belief 
that  Whittelsey  and  Mrs.  Page  carried  in  their  ears  and  their  brains  either  the  words  that 
were  spoken  or  the  tones  of  voice  in  which  they  were  spoken  on  that  fearful  night  to  them? 
But,  gentlemen,  where  are  the  other  witnesses  to  this  identification  ?  Where  are  those 
witnesses  who  had  least  to  fear,  aud  were  most  calm  on  that  terrible  night  ?  Why  is  it  that 
the  government  seeking  a  fair  trial  has  suppressed  them  ?  Where  are  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Cutler 
and  the  servant  who  had  no  connection  with  that  bank  and  no  fear  of  it  ?  Why  have  the 
government  not  summoned  them  here  that  you  may  have  a  real  and  true  test  of  what  voices 
were  spoken  in  their  presence  ?  I  have  waited,  and  did  wait  in  the  early  part  of  this  trial, 
for  them  to  produce  these  witnesses,  but  not  once  has  the  government  intimated  that 
there  were  other  witnesses  that  they  might  have  called,  who  would  give  evidence  in  regard 
to  the  voices  of  these  men.  They  had  never  admitted  to  you  that  there  were  other  wit¬ 
nesses  who  had  no  fear,  whose  bank  was  not  to  be  robbed,  who  lives  were  not  threatened  ; 
who  never  once  recognized  these  men,  or  attempted  to  recollect  their  voices.  I  know, 
gentlemen,  I  know  it  will  be  suggested  that  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Whittelsey  and  Mrs.  Page  were 
under  intense  excitement  ;  that  their  whole  intellects  were  stimulated,  that  they  were  so 
aroused  as  to  be  capable  of  taking  hold  of  and  retaining  in  their  memories  scenes  and  inci¬ 
dents  that  took  place  on  that  night  as  they  could  not  on  any  other  occasion.  Now,  Mrs. 
Page  tells  you  that  she  was  unusually  calm  ;  this  maiden  lady  into  whose  bed-chamber  a 
masked  man  entered  at  midnight,  tells  you  she  was  frightened  but  for  a  moment,  and 
Whittelsey,  who  was  there  being  pounded,  aud  punched,  and  threatened,  and  heard  the 
plaintive  cries  of  his  wife,  tells  you  that  he  was  specially  on  the  alert.  But,  gentlemen, 
how  does  their  evidence  prove  their  calmness,  and  alertness  ?  Take  if  you  please,  Mr. 
Whittelsey,  who  tells  you  that  he  was  so  alert,  and  he  cannot  tell  you  how  a  man  was  dress¬ 
ed.  He  cannot  tell  you  what  sort  of  a  mask  was  upon  any  man’s  face,  nor  the  color  of  it, 
nor  the  material,  nor  whether  there  were  holes  for  the  eyes,  or  nose,  or  mouth,  or  not  at 
all.  Take  Mrs.  Page,  and  she  cannot,  though  woman  she  is,  describe  the  dress  of  any 
of  these  people,  except,  she  says,  the  taller  man  had  on  a  duster.  Gentlemen,  which  is 
the  taller  man  ?  Her  iden  till  cation,  gentlemen,  so  completely  fails,  that  she  cannot  de¬ 
scribe  the  size  and  the  higlit  of  this  next  smaller  man,  and  in  reply  to  Mr.  Bond,  she 
says,  there  may  have  been  a  difference  in  the  hight  of  the  next  to  the  shortest,  and  the  | 
tall  man,  that  there  was  to  the  length  of  that  paper,  (holding  a  paper  in  his  hands.)  That 
is  all  she  knows.  He  was  live  or  six  feet  high.  And  this  is  the  woman  whose  intellect 
was  so  aroused,  who  was  so  calm  and  dispassionate,  that  she  cannot  tell  the  difference  of 
the  hight  of  people  between  five  or  six  feet,  how  they  were  dressed,  how  masked,  or 
whether  they  wore  brown  or  white  masks,  whether  they  had  a  space  as  broad  as  my  hand 
for  the  eyes  to  look  through,  or  none  at  all,  whether  they  had  a  place  as  broad  as  my  hand 
for  the  mouth  to  breathe  through,  or  not  at  all.  I  submit  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  the  i 
testimony  of  Mr.  Whittelsey,  and  Mr.  W hi ttelsey’s  family,  is  utterly  worthless  ;  that  there 
is  no  rule  by  which  it  is  entitled  to  any  weight  here  at  all ;  for,  if  these  people  were  so 
paralyzed  by  fear,  as  1  think  they  were,  so  paralyzed  by  fear  that  they  could  not  recognize 
the  masks  or  dress  of  these  people,  or  hight  of  them,  they  were  far  too  paralyzed  to  catch 
the  tone  of  their  voices  and  carry  it  in  their  recollections  for  a  year. 

Now,  gentlemen,  there  is  one  other  phase  of  this  testimony  that  I  think  is  worthy  of 
consideration.  Mrs.  Whittelsey  says  that  she  still  looked  with  great  interest  upon  these 
men,  and  she  marked.Scott  by  the  peculiar  shrug  of  his  shoulders,  and  the  peculiar  round¬ 
ness  of  his  shoulders.  Mark  you,  gentlemen,  if  you  please,  if  the  rest  of  their  story  is  to  ■ 
be  believed,  Scott  that  night  was  dressed  with  a  cap  that  came  tight  over  his  face  and 
eyes,  and  nose,  with  an  open  place  for  the  mouth,  of  which  they  did  not  speak,  but  ac¬ 
cording  to  their  theory,  he  was  dressed  in  a  loose,  brown  sack,  and  they  tell  you  that  there 
was  a  peculiar  shrug  of  his  shoulders  and  a  peculiar  form  of  his  shoulders,  that  in  the  few 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


51 


minutes  that  he  was  before  Mrs.  Whittelsey  she  saw  it  and  recognized  it  as  a  nervous  habit 
by  which  she  expected  to  identify  him  in  a  future  time.  Gentlemen,  here  is  Scott  before 
you.  He  has  been  here  a  week,  and  I  ask  yon  what  is  the  peculiar  roundness  and  form 
about  his  shoulders  that  distinguishes  him  from  any  other  six  foot  man.  Then,  she  says, 
there  was  a  peculiar  shrug  to  his  shoulders  that  she  saw  that  night.  It  was  a  habit,  it 
was  a  tiling  that  she  marked  him  by  that  night.  Gentlemen,  when  Scott  was  brought 
into  this  bar  and  placed  before  you,  he  ran  the  risk  that  attaches  to  habit.  He  could  no 
more  conceal  it  than  I  could  conceal  from  you  any  habit  that  belongs  to  me.  If  it  was  a 
nervous  habit,  he  could  no  more  control  it  than  he  could  the  winking  of  his  eyes.  He 
took  the  risk,  and  I  venture  to  say  that  upon  this  panel  there  is  not  a  man  who  has  seen 
the  habit  shown  in  him  once.  I  venture  to  say  that  the  habit  alleged  has  not  been  found. 
Mrs.  Whittelsey  further,  gentlemen,  says  that  she  not  only  recognized  it  on  that  night, 
but  as  soon  as  he  was  brought  to  the  bar  of  the  magistrate.  I  dwell  upon  this,  because  it 
is  a  test  by  which  you  may  test  them.  Because  you  may  apply  to  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Whittel¬ 
sey  the  test  which  they  apply  to  Scott.  It  is  the  only  test  that  is  furnished  us  to  test  them 
by  ;  and  the  evidence  comes  here  from  the  lips  of  by  no  means  willing  witnesses,  or  friendly 
to  the  unfortunate  people  who  are  before  you,  and  they  tell  you  that  iu  all  the  time  they 
have  been  with  them  and  in  the  time  they  have  guarded  over  them,  in  all  their  attendance 
at  this  trial,  in  all  their  watching  at  the  jail,  they  have  never  noticed  that  shrug  of  the 
shoulders  which  both  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Whittelsey  discovered  that  evening.  I  say  the  proba¬ 
bilities  are  against  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Whittelsey’s  testimony,  and  I  say  that  when  we  bring 
their  test  into  court  and  look  for  the  marks  upon  the  prisoners  which  they  say  were  there, 
they  are  not  to  be  found,  and  they  never  have  been  found,  we  then  take  this  testimony  to 
ourselves,  and  it  is  ours.  For  I  tell  you,  gentlemen,  that  the  men  that  broke  into  that 
house  that  night  did  have  that  peculiar  roundness  of  the  shoulders,  and  that  peculiar 
shrug  of  the  shoulders.  Where  is  that  man  with  the  nervous  hitch  which  he  could  not 
control  ?  Where  is  that  man  that  this  Edson  called  Scott,  with  the  shrug  that  he  could 
not  conceal  when  he  wanted  to  conceal  the  habit  ?  Now,  if  this  evidence  does  not  make 
for  the  prosecution,  it  makes  for  us.  It  goes  further,  and  certifies  that  he  was  not  there. 
We  claim  it  then  as  our  own.  We  claim  it  as  one  of  the  trial  proofs  in  the  case,  that  the 
man  who  was  there  is  not  the  man  who  has  been  arraigned  at  this  bar.  I  forgot  to  say, 
and  it  is  a  pity  for  it  that  it  should  escape  your  recollection,  that  Mr.  Edson  says  he  has 
a  shrug.  1  do  not  doubt  that  Edson  knows  the  man  with  the  shrug  of  the  shoulder. 
Now,  gentlemen,  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Whittelsey  are  very  nice  people,  they  are  very  conscien¬ 
tious  and  upright  people,  and  would  not,  for  the  world,  I  doubt  not,  harm  these  two 
young  men  intentionally ;  but  they  have  talked  this  matter  over  so  much,  they  have  sus¬ 
tained  and  built  up  each  other’s  belief,  they  have  fortified  and  concentrated  each  other’s 
impressions  for  a  fact,  that  while  they  mean  to  be  honest  and  just,  they  have  gone  so  far 
as  to  swear  to  that  which  they  believe  existed,  but  which  never  existed.  It  is  not  per¬ 
jury,  it  is  not  false  swearing,  but  it  is  the  result  of  a  mental  process  that  we  see  so  often, 
in  which  a  man  comes  to  believe  what  he  wants  to  believe.  I  think,  then,  with  safety  we 
may  pass  by  the  testimony  of  these  people.  I  think  we  are  all  convinced  that,  however 
good  and  honest  the  Whittelseys  may  be,  they  cannot  furnish  us  any  help  against  these 
men.  Whatever  they  have  contributed  towards  the  general  deliverance,  I  thank  them 
for,  and  so  far  as  they  have  identified  the  real  culprits  I  am  glad  of  it,  but  when  they  at¬ 
tempt  to  put  the  stamp  upon  either  of  these  men,  we  say  they  are  mistaken,  however 
honest  they  are. 

We  come  now,  gentlemen,  to  some  other  outside  and  confirmatory  testimony  of  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  Whittelsey,  since  that  is  thought,  on  the  part  of  the  government,  to  point  out 
these  men  as  the  real  culprits.  There  is  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Holt,  of  Springfield.  Any 
°f  yon,  gentlemen,  who  know  him  as  well  as  I  know  him,  might  naturally  have  expected 
him  here.  He  is  a  wonderful  man  to  see  things,  and  find  things  out,  and  if  I  was  to  des¬ 
ignate  who  in  this  emergency  should  be  summoned  here  to  recognize  these  people,  I  should 
think  Holt,  of  all  people,  would  be  first.  Mr.  Holt  sees  them  under  the  most  peculiar 
circumstances.  Early  in  the  morning  they  are  wandering  about  Springfield  in  ulster  coats 
and  silk  hats,  just  where  the  people  do  most  congregate,  just  in  the  depot  where  police 
officers  are  most  numerous,  and  just  the  spot  that  suspicious  characters  avoid,  he  finds 
and  he  places  these  men.  I  hope  you  are  all  acquainted  with  the  city  of  Springfield.  J ust 
below  the  railroad  depot  is  Hampden  street,  filled  up  with  wholesale  stores,  and  perhaps 
next  to  the  Main  street,  is  the  busiest  street  in  Springfield,  certainly  one  where  the  largest 


52 


TBIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


wholesale  business  is  done.  I  think  it  rather  strange,  I  confess  to  my  mind  it  appears 
strange,  that  these  two  men,  after  wandering  about  the  station,  should  pass  down  and 
turn  down  Hampden  street  and  meet  three  other  strangers,  in  a  great  thoroughfare,  and 
hold  their  conference  there  about  the  burglary  they  were  going  to  commit  that  night  or 
the  next.  Why  didn’t  they  go  to  the  City  Hall  ?  Why  didn’t  they  go  where  the  bank 
meetiugs  are  held  ?  If  any  man  goes  there,  he  is  supposed  to  be  a  purchaser,  and  he  is 
followed  like  any  other  trader  going  into  a  wholesale  street.  I  am  sure  in  such  a  place 
as  that  at  nine  or  ten  o’clock  in  the  morning,  rogues  do  not  congregate  for  the  purpose  of 
counselling  over  a  bank  robbery,  that  they  propose  to  commit.  And  just  see  how  this 
thing  works.  The  identification  is  complete.  Mr.  Holt  sees  them  with  ulster  coats  and 
silk  hats  in  the  morning,  and  Mrs.  Crafts  comes  to  the  stand  and  is  equally  positive  that 
it  is  Dunlap  dressed  in  a  tight  fitting  surtout,  in  the  afternoon.  Eighteen  months  after¬ 
wards  she  comes  upon  the  stand  and  her  recollections  are  as  we  have  learned.  Why,  gen¬ 
tlemen,  do  you  suppose  that  those  gentlemen  were  travelling  with  a  large  amount  of  bag¬ 
gage,  so  that  they  could  make  these  changes  in  their  clothing  ?  If  Holt  saw  them  in  the 
morning,  Mrs.  Crafts  did  not  see  them  in  the  afternoon,  and  if  Mrs.  Crafts  did  in  the  after¬ 
noon,  Holt  did  not  see  them  in  the  morning.  And,  then,  I  take  it  that  these  steady¬ 
going,  nerveless  burglars  who  commit  crime  without  conscience,  and  without  fear,  don’t 
go  bobbing  from  one  seat  to  another  in  a  railway  car,  making  so  much  noise  and  fuss  as 
to  attract  the  attention  of  every  traveler.  Then  there  is  another  identification.  It  is  a  ! 
funny  one.  It  is  very  much  like  the  rest,  to  be  sure,  but  it  is  a  somewhat  amusing  one,  | 
about  which  the  government  itself  has  made  some  fun  and  expressed  some  doubt.  Mr. 
Crafts  meets  one  of  these  men,  and  has  scarcely  any  doubt  about  it,  on  the  14th  day  of 
January,  1876,  at  nine  o’clock  in  the  morning.  He  met  a  man  dressed  in  an  ulBter  coat, 
as  he  says,  near  Mr.  Whittelsey’s  house. 

How,  if  it  was  Scott  or  Dunlap,  if  Edson  is  an  honest  man,  if  Mr.  Whittelsey  is  to  be 
believed,  if  these  men  knew  anything  about  Northampton,  they  knew  about  the  old  bank 
and  where  Mr.  Whittelsey  lived.  And  yet  Mr.  Crafts  tells  you  that  on  January  14,  at 
nine  o’clock  in  the  morning,  he  meets  a  man  whom  he  recognizes  as  Scott,  and  Scott  asks 
him  where  Mr.  Whittelsey  lives  ;  asks  him  what  family  lives  with  him  ;  talks  with  him 
right  opposite  the  house  at  that  hour  of  the  morning.  I  did  not  wonder  that  the  District 
Attorney  turned  to  him  with  surprise,  and  inquired  if  it  was  a  fair  day,  a  light  day. 
Why,  gentlemen,  Mr.  Field  was  surprised  himself,  out  of  his  self-possession,  that  a 
witness  should  come  here  and  tell  you  that  Scott  met  him  at  nine  o’clock  in  the 
morning,  and  asked  him  about  Mr.  Whittelsey’s  family  and  who  resided  with  him. 
The  thing  was  so  preposterous  that  Mr.  Field  turned  to  him  and  says,  was  it  a  light 
day  ?  Then,  there  comes  a  Mr.  Mantor,  about  whom  I  know  nothing,  and  about 
whom  it  is  not  necessary  that  I  should  say  much.  All  that  he  can  swear  to  is  that  he 
met  a  couple  of  men  in  the  early  part  of  February  in  front  of  Mr.  Whittelsey’s  house, 
gesticulating  about  the  house  with  great  violence,  “  with  great  movement  of  the  body  ” 
as  his  peculiar  and  somewhat  characteristic  expression.  Why,  gentlemen,  it  seems  that 
while  this  man  Mantor  was  approaching,  these  men  did  not  hear  him,  and  they  stood 
there  in  front  of  Mr.  Whittelsey’s  house,  gesticulating  with  great  violence  and  movement 
of  the  body,  and  they  waited  until  he  came  up  and  took  a  full  view  of  them.  He 
thinks  he  recognizes  Scott,  he  said,  but  he  carried  with  him  no  recollection  of  the  other 
man. 

Then  we  have  one  other  witness,  and  we  are  done  with  that  sort  of  identifiction,  and 
that  is  West  Sexton,  and  perhaps  his  brother.  Mr.  West  Sexton  of  Springfield,  who  is 
clerk  in  a  hotel  in  the  upper  part  of  the  city,  where  two  men  came  on  Monday  night, 
leaving  the  next  morning.  He  came  upon  the  stand,  a  wonderfully  wise  young  man. 
He  said  he  looked  these  people  all  over.  He  purposed  to  impress  ns  with  the  solemnity 
and  with  the  strength  of  his  recollection.  They  had  no  register,  and  he  looked  them  all 
over,  and  what  did  he  discover  ?  Not  a  thing,  He  said  that  he  could  not  tell  how  they 
were  dressed,  except  he  had  on  a  business  suit  and  a  heavy  overcoat.  It  was  in  the  month 
of  February,  and  I  wonld  like  to  know  who  in  that  month,  would  not  wear  a  heavy  over¬ 
coat,  if  he  had  one.  That  was  his  identification  of  the  men.  He  looked  them  over.  He 
could  not  tell  you  the  color  of  their  eyes,  nor  the  length  of  the  hair;  he  could  tell  you  nothing 
about  their  persons,  except  one  single  thing,  that  single  exception,  that  in  the  month  of 
February  when  there  was  sleighing,  the  sharpest  month  of  the  year,  they  wore  heavy 
overcoats. 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


53 


Now,  gentlemen,  all  of  these  witnesses  say  that^the  man  who  came  up  here  during  the 
month  of  February  had  no  beard.  Holt,  Mr.  Crafts,  Mr.  Mantor,  Mr.  Sexton,  every  one 
of  these  persons,  say  that  the  man  whom  they  saw  here  in  the  month  of  January  and 
February,  who  attracted  their  attention,  when  they  were  looking  after  bank  robbers  and 
when  they  were  not,  had  no  beard,  and  it  may  be  true  that  there  was  such  a  man  here. 
It  may  be  true  that  there  was  a  tall  man  with  a  heavy  ulster  and  a  beardless  cheek 
wandering  about  here  in  the  month  of  January ’or  February,  but  that  wasn’t  Scott.  It  is 
possibly  true  that  such  a  man  was  here,  with  a  shrug  to  his  shoulders  and  a  peculiar 
roundness  to  it,  with  a  moustache  upon  his  face,  and  without  a  beard,  but  that  was  not 
Scott.  That  is  the  other  man,  and  those  are  the  other  men  we  are  going  to  talk  about 
by  and  by  ;  and  if  it  proves  anything,  if  you  believe  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Whittelsey,  if  you 
believe  Mr.  Holt,  if  you  believe  Mr.  Crafts,  if  you  believe  Mr.  Mantor,  if  you  believe  Mr. 
Sexton,  then  I  tell  you  that  they  have  got  the  wrong  man,  for  the  man  whom  they  saw  is 
not  the  man  arraigned  at  your  bar.  Believe  as  you  please,  they  have  put  certain  ear¬ 
marks  on  him,  they  have  stamped  him  with  their  stamp,  they  have  endowed  him  with 
habits,  they  have  clothed  him  with  dress,  they  have  painted  his  picture  at  their  will  and 
at  their  memory,  and  we  bring  forward  our  man,  and  we  place  him  beside  the  photograph 
they  have  prepared  for  you,  and  they  are  mistaken.  Not  one  or  the  characteristics  which 
they  give  to  these  men  have  we  here,  and  as  I  think  I  shall  prove  it  before  we  have 
finished,  that  the  men  whom  they  saw  on  the  night  of  the  25th,  whom  they  saw 
in  Springfield  on  the  morning  of  the  25th,  whom  Mrs.  Crafts  saw  in  the  cars  on  the 
afternoon  of  the  25th,  and  who  was  seen  on  February  14th,  have'not  any  of  the  signs  that 
they  have  seen  fit  to  stamp  upon  them. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  say  and  I  think  I  am  justified  in  saying,  that  up  to  this  point  there 
has  been  a  complete  failure  on  the  part  of  the  government ;  that  so  far  as  we  have  pro¬ 
gressed  in  the  review  of  this  testimony  there  has  been  a  woful  failure,  if  these  men  are 
guilty,  in  proving  their  guilt.  Gentiemen,  if  anything  has  been  done,  there  has  been 
great  strength  thrown  forward  to  show  the  innocence  of  these  men  in  the  complete  failure 
of  the  government.  The  whole  strength  of  the  government  case,  of  the  government’s 
testimony,  as  presented  in  this  case,  comes  from  the  testimony  of  Edson.  There  is 
nothing  about  it  from  beginning  to  end,  unless  Edson  makes  it.  And  Edson,  at  the 
threshold  disqualifies  himself  as  a  witness.  He  says  that  he  was  an  accomplice,  and  every 
honest  and  upright  juror  seeking  to  punish  wrong  and  protect  the  innocent,  demands  as 
every  conscientious  juryman  should  demand  that  a  verdict  should  not  be  asked  of  him, 
unless  it  was  sustained  by  pure  and  honest  testimony.  I  say  Mr.  Edson’s  testimony  is 
worthless,  and  he  himself  is  disqualified.  The  experience  of  all  men  and  of  all  courts,  is 
that  the  liberties  and  lives  of  the  citizens  cannot  be  trusted  to  the  keeping  of  criminals. 
I  repeat,  the  testimony  and  experience  of  all  times  and  of  alFmen  is,  that  the  lives  and 
liberties  of  the  citizens  cannot  safely  be  trusted  into  the  keeping  of  the  criminals. 
Hatred,  desire  for  revenge,  the  love  of  reward,  the  fear  of  punishment,  are  motives  which 
bring  out  the  confession  and  the  testimony  of  the  hardened  criminal  ;  even  of  the  best  of 
the  criminals.  Even  of  those  who  have  fallen  into  temptation  once,  and  in  moments  of 
repentence  seek  to  get  back  to  paths  of  virtue,  the  courts  tell  you  their  lips  are  soiled  and 
their  testimony  worthless,  unless  it  is  substantiated  and  corroborated  by  honest  testimony. 
But  of  all  the  criminals  that  you  and  I  ever  saw,  this  Edson  is  the  worst  and  the  blackest. 
Other  men  have  committed  great  crimes  in  great  passion  and  excitement,  but  Edson,  in 
the  variety,  in  the  number,  in  the  hardness,  in  the  meanness,  in  the  treachery  of  his 
crimes,  has  surpassed  them  all.  From  his  own  confession  he  is  a  thief,  by  his  own 
hardened  confession  he  is  a  liar.  Unblushingly,  in  the  presence  of  this  court 
'and  this  jury,  he  acknowledges  himself  the  bigamist,  who  takes  on  and  puts 
away  a  wife  at  his  pleasure.  He  cheats  his  creditors  at  the  rate  of  ten  thousand 
[dollars  a  month,  and  flees  his  country,  that  he  might  spend  their  spoils.  He  dis¬ 
honors  and  betrays  his  employer,  he  is  treacherous  to  his  friends.  Gentlemen,  he  is  the 
I  monster  of  all  the  meaner  vices.  If  he  is  the  man  he  claims  to  be,  if  he  is  the  confeder¬ 
ate  of  these  men,  he  is  50  years  of  age,  and  they  are  young  men,  and  he  lead  them  into 
temptation.  He  it  was  that  devised  the  scheme  to  rob  this  bank,  and  he  it  is  that  comes 
upon  the  stand,  and  stood  there  testifying  against  these  men.  There  was  no  pity  in  his 
eyes,  there  was  no  tremor  in  his  voice,  as  with  remorseless  revenge,  he  sought  to  crush 
i  and  destroy  them.  I  ask  you,  gentlemen,  if  from  a  man  as  treacherous  and  crafty,  as 
hardened  and  remorseless,  as  he  is,  you  will  receive  the  testimony  that  leads  these  young 


54 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


men  down  to  destruction.  I  ask  you  as  jurymen,  if  you  can  pronounce  upon  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  such  a  man,  that  fatal  word,  that  sends  these  men  to  condign  punishment 
forever. 

Gentlemen,  what  is  the  motive  of  Edson’s  testimony  ?  what  is  the  inducement  that 
brings  him  here  ?  He  tells  you  that  lie  did  not  open  his  head  until  these  men  were  ar¬ 
rested.  What  does  it  signify  ?  He  knew  that  he  was  suspected  all  through  New  York. 
He  says  so,  and  when  the  detectives,  for  some  reason  or  other,  put  their  hands  upon  Scott 
and  Dunlap,  and  not  until  then,  Edson  steps  forward,  and  says  they  are  the  men  :  under 
their  destruction  he  could  escape  punishment,  and  in  their  punishment  he  could  have  his 
extended  reward.  Point  to  us  the  men,  say  the  bank  officers,  tell  us  their  names,  and 
we  will  give  you  $25,000.  Why,  gentlemen,  did  you  ever  know,  in  the  court  house,  in 
the  old  county  of  Hampshire,  of  a  scene  like  this,  that  guilty  culprit  and  criminal  should 
confess  his  crime,  without  a  blush,  and  come  here  to  escape  the  punishment  which  he  de¬ 
serves,  and  condemn  these  young  men  to  lasting  punishment,  and  should  fill  his  pockets 
with  dollars  and  cents,  with  the  hundreds  and  thousands  of  dollars  that  are  to  be  rewarded 
to  the  detector  of  the  criminals.  I  am  6ure  that  no  jury  of  Hampshire  county  ever  lis¬ 
tened  to  a  like  witness  stimulated  by  like  motives  and  like  hopes.  Now,  gentlemen,  there 
is  no  doubt  but  that  Edson  knew  what  he  was  about.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  but 
what  Edson  knows  who  are  the  men  who  entered  Mr.  Wldttelsey’s  house.  I  have  no 
doubt  that  he  might  go  upon  this  stand,  if  he  had  an  honest  feature  in  his  whole  system, 
and  tell  you  who  was  that  beardless  man  that  came  up  here  and  robbed  this  bank,  although 
I  would  not  believe  him,  if  he  did  tell  us.  I  have  no  doubt  that  all  he  confesses,  all  the 
details  with  regard  to  the  burglary  that  he  describes,  may  have  been  true,  but  I  tell  you 
there  is  no  difficulty  in  designating  any  two  men  that  belong  to  that  gang,  as  Scott  and 
Dunlap.  He  may  call  Tom  Jones  and  John  Smith,  Scott  and  Dunlap.  He  may  call 
Green  and  Thompson,  Dunlap  and  Scott,  and  every  fact  that  did  take  place,  every  word 
that  was  spoken,  every  telegram  that  was  sent,  every  visit  that  was  made,  turns  out  to  be 
true.  True  of  Green  and  Thompson,  whom  he  has  called  Scott  and  Dunlap.  His  quick 
and  ready  wit,  his  stony  cheek,  would  carry  the  rest  through.  It  was  a  splendid  oppor¬ 
tunity,  that  he  wanted  to  escape  punishment  and  obtain  his  reward,  and  fall  upon  his 
enemies.  But,  gentlemen,  in  one  thing  he  fails.  In  one  most  remarkable  thing  he  fails  ; 
and  when  you  consider  the  period  of  time  over  which  these  transactions  extended,  when 
you  consider  that  it  was  from  somewhere  early  in  August  to  January  26,  in  the  accom¬ 
plishment  of  this,  extending  even  to  February  i8,  from  the  discussion  of  the  robbery  and 
the  gathering  of  the  securities,  it  is  astonishing  that  there  has  not  been  found  one  honest, 
disinterested  witness,  in  the  whole  world,  that  has  confirmed  Edson  in  one  single  par¬ 
ticular.  I  say  this,  gentlemen,  inviting  your  criticism.  I  say  it  with  deliberation,  and  I 
ask  you  to  follow  me  through  the  balance  of  my  argument,  that  so  far  as  corroboration  of 
a  fact  that  fastens  and  attaches  this  crime  to  Scott  and  Dunlap,  there  is  not  an  iota  of 
testimony  that  comes  from  disinterested  witnesses,  through  the  whole,  trial,  confirmatory 
of  Edson.  Now,  I  do  not  care  how  far  witnesses  come  forward  to  corroborate  what  Edson 
says  Edson  did.  If  Mr.  Edson  came  upon  the  stand  here  and  said  he  borrowed  keys  of 
Mr.  Warriner,  and  Mr.  Warriner  said  he  did,  that  is  no  corroboration  that  affects  these 
defendants.  If  Edson  says  he  made  a  plan  of  the  vault  of  the  Third  National  Bank  of 
Syracuse,  and  Mr.  Gleason  is  shown  the  plan,  and  says  it  is  true,  that  is  no  corroboration 
that  affects  these  defendants.  If  Edson  says  he  was  here  examining  this  bank,  and  the 
officers  say  it  is  true,  if  Edson  says  that  he  came  here  by  receiving  a  telegram  from  Her¬ 
ring  &  Co.,  and  the  bank  officers  say  it  is  true,  if  Edson  says  that  he  introduced  Mr.  Wil¬ 
liams  to  Connors,  and  Mr.  Williams  says  that  is  true,  they  don’t  affect  these  defendants. 
Edson  may  corroborate  himself  as  often  as  he  pleases.  He  may  be  like  the  magician,  who 
turns  a  somerset  and  jumps  down  his  own  throat.  It  don’t  make  it  true  because  Edson 
comes  forward  and  swears  to  certain  facts  about  which  there  is  no  controversy,  and  Edson 
is  corroborated  by  the  officers  of  the  bank.  A  corroboration  to  corroborate  Edson,  must 
connect  these  defendants  with  him,  and  with  the  crime  with  which  they  are  charged,  or 
it  all  goes  for  nothing. 

Now,  gentlemen,  let  us  take  one  or  two,  and  I  think  I  am  going  over  all  the  corroborat¬ 
ing  circumstances.  Certainly,  I  have  not  intentionally  passed  "by  one,  and  if  I  have,  I 
ask  my  friends  here  to  say  so,  because  I  do  not  want  one  to  escape  my  observation.  Let 
us,  then,  begin  with  the  leading  one  which  looks  like  a  corroboration,  and  that  is  this 
Wilkesbarre  affair.  There  is  hardly  a  doubt,  in  my  mind,  that  at  Wilkesbarre,  in  the 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


55 


State  of  Pennsylvania,  one  R.  C.  Hill  did  pass  from  Wednesday  to  Saturday  ;  and,  I  think, 
it  cannot  be  doubted  that  there  was  a  telegraphic  dispatch  sent  to  W.  L.  Edwards,  and 
possibly  there  was  a  reply  from  Hill  to  Edwards.  But,  who  is  R.  C.  Hill  ?  Mr.  Edson 
tells  us  it  is  Dunlap,  and  without  Edson  to  put  his  sanction  upon  it,  the  whole  Wilkes- 
barre  matter  goes  for  nothing.  It  may  be  true  that  this  very  man,  who  has  been  described 
here  as  a  smooth-faced  man,  with  a  shrug  of  his  shoulders,  was  at  Wilkesbarre.  But  the 
whole  Wilkesbarre  matter  is  nothing,  without  Edson  says  it  happened,  and  nobody  in  the 
world,  but  Edson,  sustains  it.  How,  gentlemen,  if  you  are  to  examine  that  testimony, 
and  the  proof  there  is  against  these  men,  I  call  your  attention  to  the  proof  that  has  been 
left  out,  to  what  the  government  has  concealed,  as  well  as  what  the  government  has  ex¬ 
posed.  From  Wednesday  until  Saturday  we  know  very  well  this  Hill  was  at  the  Wyoming 
Valley  House.  From  Wednesday  until  Saturday  R.  C.  Hill  was  at  the  Wyoming  House, 
and,  according  to  Edson’s  story,  Scott  was  at  some  hotel  at  Pittston ;  and  yet,  from  the 
Wyoming  Valley  House,  or  from  the  hotel  at  Pittston,  not  a  man  can  be  found  who  iden¬ 
tifies  Dunlap  or  Scott  as  being  there  at  that  time.  The  hotel  clerks  and  the  hotel-keep¬ 
ers,  the  men  and  women  who  are  in  the  hotel.  Strangers  might  have  been  brought  here 
from  the  Wyoming  Valley  Hotel,  or  from  the  Pittston  Hotel,  and  from  Wednesday,  at 
least,  and  possibly  until  Saturday  night,  these  men,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Edson, 
were  there  ;  and  not  a  man  can  be  found  from  either  of  these  hotels  that  will  confirm  one 
word  that  Edson  has  said.  Where  is  your  corroboration  of  this  ?  And,  gentlemen,  I 
call  your  attention  to  the  absence  of  corroboration.  They  brought  the  telegraph  man 
here,  this  bank  and  these  detectives.  They  have  brought  every  man  here  in  the  United 
States  of  America  that  they  wanted  here.  There  is  no  lack  of  money,  there  is  no  lack  of 
persistency,  there  is  no  tack  of  means,  and  if,  for  a  whole  week,  these  men  had  occupied 
their  room  apparently  for  business  in  these  two  hotels,  I  tell  you  somebody  would  have 
been  found  who  would  have  recognized  them. 

We  come,  then,  gentlemen,  to  the  next  corroborating  circumstance,  and  that  is  the  per¬ 
sonals  that  were  published  in  the  newspapers.  Edson  tells  you  that  he  published  certain 
personals  in  the  Hew  York  Herald,  and  he  brings  the  Hew  York  Herald  to  confirm  and 
corroborate  him.  Gentlemen,  who  is  Idalia,  in  the  Hew  York  Herald  ?  As  you  go  to  your 
room  and  you  take  these  Hew  York  personals  to  read  them  over,  you  will  find  that,  in 
these  papers,  there  are  personals  that  he  might  have  adopted  as  well  as  this.  There  is  no¬ 
body,  but  Edson,  that  puts  a  corroboration  upon  it,  and  Edson  says  he  is  a  liar.  “  Knox, 
come  home.”  “Knox,  come  home.”  Knox  may  have  been  one  of  the  gang  who  gath¬ 
ered  at  Knox  building,  at  the  corner  of  Broadway  and  Fulton  street,  as  likely  as  the  man 
who  owned  the  Knox  horse.  I  believe  the  one  as  quick  as  the  other.  The  gang  that  gath¬ 
ered  at  the  Knox  House,  at  the  corner  of  Broadway  and  Fulton  street,  was  quite  as  likely 
to  be  reached  by  an  advertisement  of  that  nature  as  the  man  who  owned  the  Knox  horse. 

Then  comes  the  trampling  of  the  grass  around  the  quince  bush.  Mrs.  Whittelsey  says 
the  grass  has  been  tumbled,  and  Edson  comes  forward  and  says  Scott  did  it — every  time. 
There  is  no  testimony  wanted,  there  is  none  to  be  supplied,  but  what  Edson  steps  upon 
the  stand,  with  his  martial  stride,  and  says  Scott.  Why,  it  may  be  that  this  other  gang- 
gathered  under  the  quince  bush  and  told  Edson  the  story, — this  Green  and  Thompson, 
this  Smith  and  Jones,  whom  he  has  called  Scott  and  Dunlap  ;  and  Mrs  Whittelsey  cor¬ 
roborates  and  sactions  and  sanctifies  Edson’s  story.  Then  there  is  another  bit  of  corrob¬ 
oration.  After,  I  do  not  know  how  many  months, — at  least,  ever  since  these  poor,  unfor¬ 
tunate  men  have  been  arrested, — the  government  has  had  in  its  possession  letters,  or  a 
letter,  and  a  piece  of  paper  on  which  Scott  and  Dunlap  wrote  some  directions.  Ever 
since  the  robbery  they  have  had  in  their  possession  certain  letters,  with  superscriptions 
upon  the  envelopes,  and  the  admitted  piece  of  writing  of  Scott  and  Dunlap.  They  have 
been  seeking  to  find  out  if  there  was  not  a  resemblance  upon  the  envelopes  and  upon  the 
standard  piece  of  paper.  They  have  searched  all  Horthampton  for  experts.  They  have 
been  to  Springfield,  and  have  searched  all  Springfield  over  for  experts,  Sometime,  I  do 
not  know  when,  but  some  months  ago,  Mr.  President  Edwards  took  these  letters  down  to 
Hew  York  to  find  experts.  He  applied  to  Mr.  Pinkerton  to  find  experts  who  would  ex¬ 
amine  this  paper  and  try  to  discover  some  relation  between  the  standard  and  the  inscrip¬ 
tion  on  the  envelopes.  Don’t  charge  them  with  negligence.  Don’t  believe  that  the  offi¬ 
cers  of  the  bank  have  left  anything  undone.  Don’t  believe,  gentlemen,  they  have  not 
been  properly  diligent.  But  I  tell  you  that  in  all  their  efforts,  in  all  their  searches,  in  all 
their  inquiries,  not  a  solitary  man  could  be  found  until  a  week  last  Saturday,  when  Mr, 


66 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


Jacob  (or  Joseph)  E.  Paine  turned  up  from  somewhere.  Why,  gentlemen,  he  was  over¬ 
borne  bv  those  absent  witnesses  before  he  went  upon  the  stand.  He  was  outweighed  by 
the  witnesses  they  did  not  call.  He  was  met  by  an  array  of  witnesses,  whom  they  did 
not  summon,  from  Northampton,  from  Springfield,  I  doubt  not,  from  Boston  and  from 
New  York,  and  he  was  the  only  man  among  them  that  thought,  or  thought  that  he 
thought,  they  furnished  a  resemblance.  But,  gentlemen,  he  told  better  than  he  knew. 
He  gave  a  true  exposition  of  his  philosophy  when  he  said  he  came  upon  the  stand,  not  to 
enlighten  the  jury,  not  on  the  side  of  truth,  but  he  came  to  the  stand  to  point  out  the 
similarities,  and  to  pass  by  the  dissimilarities,  between  the  standard  writing  and  the  en¬ 
velope  writing.  What  sort  of  an  expert  is  that  that  comes  upon  the  stand  as  an  advocate  ? 
What  sort  of  an  expert  is  he  who  is  called  here  not  to  help  the  jury,  but  to  convict  the 
prisoners?  We  will  put  these  envelopes  and  the  standard  into  your  hands.  We  have 
called  here  an  honest  man,  born  in  this  county,  who  has  been  distinguished  by  years  of 
study  in  New  York,  who  comes  here  and  tells  that  there  are  similarities,  but  that  there 
are  great  dissimilarities  There  are  always  similarities  to  be  found  where  people  write, 
and  particularly  in  a  disguised  hand,  and  he  tells  you  that  the  best  of  his  judgment  and 
honest  conviction  that  lie  has  reached,  after  a  careful  examination,  is  that  there  is  no 
resemblance  between  the  standard  writing  and  the  envelopes.  But,  gentlemen,  you  are 
the  judges.  The  first  question  is  to  be  left  to  you.  Take  these  envelopes  and  this  stand¬ 
ard  to  your  jury  room,  search  them  plainly,  search  them  impartially,  and  fearlessly,  lean¬ 
ing  on  the  side  of  justice  and  of  mercy,  and  tell  me  if  you  hud  in  the  statements  of  Mr. 
Paine,  or  in  the  examination  of  the  letters,  the  slightest  corroboration  of  his  testimony. 
And,  gentlemen,  did  you  know  that  Mr.  Edson  appears  here  again  ?  I  am  not  looking 
now  at  the  bulk  of  his  testimony,  for  I  pass  it  by,  but  Mr.  Edson  is  again  brought  upon 
the  stand  and  he  says,  I  suggested  to  Scott  that  he  should  put  those  documents,  those 
bonds  which  were  returned  to  the  bank,  into  the  letter.  It  was  a  fact  which  he  forgot,  at 
first,  to  . mention.  When  there  is  a  difficulty  to  prove  these  letters  he  supplies  the  testi¬ 
mony,  and  says  he  suggested  the  thing.  And  the  bank  corroborate  Mr.  Edson  by  finding 
the  certificates  in  the  bank.  I  would  like  to  know  who  is  doing  it  ?  Is  Edson  corrob¬ 
orating  Warriner,  or  Warriner  Edson  ?  Then,  gentlemen,  they  find  some  corroboration, 
or  claim  they  did,  because  they  traced  an  acquaintance  between  Scott  and  William  Con¬ 
nors.  I  know  nothing  of  William  Connors,  except  what  appears  here.  I  do  not  think  it 
is  to  the  credit  of  these  men  that  they  happen  to  be  his  acquaintances,  but,  gentlemen, 
there  is  not  the  slightest  proof  in  the  world,  except  from  Edson,  that  Connors  is  a  bank 
breaker.  He  may  be  one,  but  I  never  heard  before  that  the  man  who  stole  the  money  and 
the  securities  "was  the  man  who  carried  them  back  to  the  owner  to  sell  them.  I  can  easily 
imagine  a  gang  employing  Connors  to  negotiate  for  them,  but  I  do  not  believe  that  Con¬ 
nors.  if  he  broke  into  a  bank,  stood  his  part  with  the  gang,  would  be  the  man  who  met 
Mr.  Williams  and  talked  with  him  about  selling  the  securities. 

M  e  come  now,  gentlemen,  to  another  piece  of  testimony.  It  is  the  only  piece  of  testi¬ 
mony  upon  which  I  comment  with  great  reluctance.  There  is  said  to  have  been  certain 
keys  found  in  the  carpet-bag  belonging  to  Scott,  and  certain  plans  found  in  the  trunk  be¬ 
longing  to  Dunlap.  Gentlemen,  the  first  question  that  is  raised,  is,  who  found  them  ? 
The  detectives  found  them.  In  both  cases,  gentlemen,  in  the  bag  and  in  the  trunk,  the 
detectives  are  at  work.  I  know  nothing  about  these  detectives,  personally,  and  therefore 
I  have  no  right  to  speak  about  them  personally,  but  I  know  the  detective  in  the  abstract, 
and  I  submit  to  yon,  gentlemen,  he  is  the  nearest  in  blood  to  the  criminal.  From  the  very 
necessity  of  the  case,  he  is  his  advocate  and  his  companion,  and  he  adopts  his  mode  of  life. 
He  is  so  near,  gentlemen,  that  he  sometimes  assumes  both  characters  with  ease.  He  be¬ 
comes  the  criminal  or  the  detective,  as  may  best  suit  his  purpose.  To  be  successful,  he 
must  adopt  the  old  adage,  and  “set  a  rogue  to  catch  a  rogue.”  Gentlemen,  you  have  had 
some  experience  about  detectives  in  this  county.  You  have  seen  how  they  build  up  a  case  ; 
you  saw  how  they  found  testimony  among  the  dead  or  the  living,  and  you  saw  how  the 
fabric  which  they  built  totters  and  tumbles  when  the  truth  is  known. 

(At  this  point  the  court  took  a  recess  of  five  minutes,  after  which  Mr.  Leonard  con¬ 
tinued  his  argument.) 

1  say,  gentlemen,  these  detectives  were  bound  to  produce  a  conviction.  They  say  they 
found  the  keys  in  Scott’s  bag,  and  they  claim  that  that  connects  him  with  a  crime  which 
had  been  committed  thirteen  months  before  they  found  these  keys,  and  having  fixed  and 
established  Scott’s  character,  as  they  think,  they  start  to  play  the  same  game  upon  Dun- 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


57 


lap.  What  is  good  for  Scott,  is  good  for  Dunlap,  and  the  trick  that  they  had  played  upon 
Scott,  they  play  upon  Dunlap.  Why,  they  don’t  exhibit  their  ordinary  genius  and  inge¬ 
nuity.  After  the  arrest  of  Dunlap  in  Philadelphia,  the  trunk  was  opened  in  New  York, 
and  when  they  do  it  they  call  in  a  New  York  policeman  simply  to  corroborate  and  con¬ 
firm  their  statement.  A  New  York  policeman  is  the  highest  indorsement  that  these  de¬ 
tectives  could  employ,  at  least  they  say,  gentlemen,  there  were  other  gentlemen  who  were 
unconnected  with  this  kind  of  business,  but  not  one  of  those  five  who  were  present  have 
they  called  here.  They  found,  they  say,  the  plan  in  Dunlap’s  trunk.  Why,  gentlemen, 
it  is  the  old  trick  which  has  been  played  here  over  and  over  again.  It  is  Sampson  Brass 
putting  the  stolen  five-pound  note  into  the  lining  of  Christopher’s  hat,  and  discovering  it 
when  his  friends  are  about  !  Why,  this  is  human  nature,  says  Sampson,  is  it  ?  But  I 
must  enforce  the  laws  of  this  unhappy  country  ;  forgive  me  my  momentary  weakness,  it 
is  past,  take  hold  of  his  other  arm.  So,  gentlemen,  these  detectives,  like  Sampson,  per¬ 
haps  it  is  probable,  it  is  possible,  it  is  a  common  trick,  found  in  the  trunk  of  Dunlap, 
just  the  sort  of  evidence  that  they  want  here.  I  say,  gentlemen,  the  trick  is  too  old.  It 
has  been  too  often  repeated  to  carry  conviction  to  your  mind.  But,  gentlemen,  wjiat  does 
it  prove  ?  I  want  you  to  examine  it  entire,  and  all  the  circumstances  about  that  plan 
that  we  know,  and  it  shows  how  perfectly  useless  it  is  for  these  men  to  attempt  to 
pervert  the  truth.  It  was  a  plan  drawn  a  year  previous.  Does  it  prove  that  Dunlap  and 
Scott  were  in  Mr.  Whittelsey’s  house  that  night  of  January  26  ?  If  it  does  not,  it  is  use¬ 
less  here.  Does  it  tend  to  prove,  to  confirm,  the  story  of  Edson,  that  one  night  later  they 
were  there  in  disguise,  breathing  out  threatening  and  slaughter  to  the  Whittelsey  family? 
If  it  does  not  prove  that,  or  tend  to  prove  it,  it  is  utterly  worthless.  It  was  a  plan,  gen¬ 
tlemen,  of  a  bank  in  Syracuse,  that  had  been  drawn  months  before.  Now,  how  did  it 
get  into  Dunlap’s  trunk  ?  Nobody  knows,  at  least,  nobody  tells,  and  I  ask  you,  gentle¬ 
men,  if  it  had  been  connected  with  a  burglary  really  planned,  do  you  suppose  Dunlap 
would  have  kept  it  where  he  kept  his  clothes,  in  his  trunk  ?  That  Dunlap  would  have 
retained  in  his  possession  a  useless  plan,  that  was  likely  to  bring  him  into  trouble  ?  If  it 
was  in  the  trunk,  and  Dunlap  had  put  it  there,  Dunlap  knew  it,  and  Dunlap  it  was  that 
called  Pinkerton’s  attention  to  the  fact  that  his  trunk  was  at  the  Grand  Central  Hotel. 
Yes,  gentlemen,  they  would  not  have  known  where  the  trunk  was,  if  Dunlap  had  not  told 
them,  and  I  am  sure  Dunlap  would  not  have  told  them  if  he  knew  there  was  in  the  trunk 
the  keys  of  a  burglar,  and  the  plan  of  a  bank  that  had  been  robbed.  Give  the  man  credit 
for  some  brains.  What  was  his  purpose  in  keeping  this  plan,  if  he  had  ever  been  con¬ 
nected  with  this  crime,  and  why  should  he  ask  the  detective  officers  to  get  his  trunk  for 
him,  which  was  in  the  Grand  Central  Hotel,  in  the  care  of  the  porter  ?  And  now,  gen¬ 
tlemen,  finally,  we  have  the  significant  fact,  that  when  the  trunk  was  rolled  over,  it  was 
found  unlocked.  Yes,  it  was  found  unlocked.  When  Mr.  Rothwell  turned  that  trunk 
over,  it  was  an  unlocked  trunk.  Do  you  believe,  gentlemen,  that  Dunlap  knew  there  was 
such  a  plan  in  the  trunk,  that  he  would  not  have  known  it  if  he  had  put  it  there,  and 
having  put  it  there,  do  you  suppose  he  would  have  called  the  attention  of  these  detectives, 
who  were  following  him  with  remorseless  fury,  to  his  trunk  ?  Do  you  suppose  he  would 
have  told  them  where  that  trunk  was,  containing  that  hidden  plan  ?  And  it  is  strange 
and  mysterious,  gentlemen,  that  they  had  not  sufficient  confidence  in  their  own  word, 
that  they  did  not  believe  they  were  to  be  believed  by  a  jury  of  this  county,  unless  they 
were  supported  by  somebody  who  didn’t  have  anything  to  gain,  or  any  hope  of  the  reward 
which  the  bank  areholding  out.  And  so  they  called  in  a  New  York  policeman,  about  this 
one  fact,  and  about  nothing  more.  When  the  trunk  was  opened  the  first  time,  Pinkerton 
says  he  found  the  plan,  and  then  went  there  a  second  time  and  took  out  some  wax,  which 
he  says  he  saw  there  the  first  time,  but  did  not  take,  and  only  took  the  plan.  Wasn’t  the 
plan  enough  ?  Wasn’t  the  evidence  of  the  plan  enough,  that  they  must  repeat  the  experi¬ 
ment,  and  find  the  wax  ?  Do  you  suppose  that  this  wax,  which  is  so  suggestive  when 
connected  with  this  crime  we  are  talking  of,  was  found  for  the  first  time  when  they  made 
their  search  ?  There  were  two  things  in  the  bag.  There  were  these  keys  and  the  nip¬ 
pers,  according  to  the  detectives’  theory.  There  had  been  but  one  thing  taken  from  the 
trunk,  and  that  was  the  plan,  but  it  gave  them  an  idea,  and  when  they  took  the  wax,  and 
all  at  the  invitation  of  Mr.  Dunlap,  I  believe  I  should  be  very  suspicious  myself  of  the 
corroborating  circumstances  that  the  government  have  relied  upon. 

But,  gentlemen,  we  don’t  stop  there,  and  we  call  your  attention  to  the  testimony  which 
the  government  might  have  produced,  but  have  not.  I  dwell  upon  this  with  particular 


68 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


satisfaction.  I  charge  the  government  with  keeping  back  testimony,  and  most  important 
testimony,  that  might  have  been  produced  in  this  case.  Let  me  refer  to  it,  gentlemen,  as 
briefly  as  I  may.  Edson  says  that  Dunlap  and  Scott  were  so  in  the  habit  of  coming  to 
his  house  on  Sunday  morning  and  night,  that  they  finally  refused  to  come  there  any  more — 
their  habit  had  been  so  constant  and  frequent.  Where  are  the  servants  of  Edson  that 
opened  the  door  to  Scott  and  Dunlap  ?  Where  are  the  persons  that  came  forward  to  con¬ 
firm  them  in  their  frequent  visits  ? 

Not  a  solitary  instance  !  Neither  Edson’s  wife,  nor  Edson’s  children,  nor  Edson’s  ser¬ 
vants,  nor  Edson 's  neighbors,  nor  the  policeman  whose  beat  is  constantly  in  front,  up  and 
down  by  his  house.  These  men  were  there  so  often  that  he  says  they  refused  to  come  any 
more,  and  yet  not  a  confirmatory  or  corroborating  witness  has  been  found.  It  is  easy 
enough  for  Edson  to  swear  that  he  met  them  at  the  corner  of  50th  street  ;  that  he  walked 
up  and  down  the  avenue  in  the  night  time;  that  he  rode  in  a  carriage  with  them  from  10 
to  12  o’clock,  and  that  these  men  came  to  his  house  so  often  that  they  finally  refused  to 
go  any  more.  Tell  me,  gentleman,  where  is  the  servant  that  opened  that  door,  or  the 
policeman  that  trod  the  street,  or  the  neighbor  wTho  looked  out  of  the  window  ?  Not  one 
of  them  can  be  produced  here.  Where  are  the  crowd  on  Broadway  and  Fulton  street, 
who  were  in  the  habit  of  seeing  these  men  go  into  the  Knox  building  to  meet  him  almost 
daily  ?  Not  one,  not  a  man.  Where  are  the  persons,  gentlemen,  from  whom  they  got 
the  material  that  has  been  produced  here  ;  the  blankets,  and  iron  work,  and  the  tools  ? 
Not  a  solitary  man  is  to  be  found.  And,  gentlemen,  I  go  still  farther,  and  I  call  your 
attention  to  one  piece  of  testimony  that  the  government  has  produced  here.  Mr.  Pinker¬ 
ton  tells  you  that  within  two  or  three  days  from  the  robbery,  I  think  as  early  as  that,  he 
was  consulted  and  on  the  scent.  Gentlemen,  on  the  night  of  the  6th  of  February,  two 
men  started  from  New  York  by  the  New  Haven  steamboat  to  go  to  Springfield  and  North¬ 
ampton.  Before  the  steamboat  left  the  wharf  at  New  York,  before  she  had  landed  her 
passengers  at  New  Haven,  the  detectives  knew  that  these  men  had  gone  with  a  pair  of 
horses  and  a  wagon.  Thus,  gentlemen,  as  early  as  the  7th  of  February,  the  eye  of  the 
detective  was  upon  these  horses  and  thi6  wagon,  and  these  men.  Before  they  reached 
Springfield  they  knew  who  they  were,  and  they  did  not  reach  Springfield  before  their  eyes 
fell  upon  the  very  dispatch  which  was  published  in  the  Springfield  Union  of  Monday, 
February  7  : 

“  Telegrams  were  received  from  New  York  detectives,  Saturday,  February  5,  stating 
positively  that  the  securities  recently  stolen  from  the  Northampton  National  Bank,  were 
buried  somewhere  in  the  town,  and  that  the  burglars  wrere  coming  for  them.” 

You  see  they  had  only  just  started  on  Saturday,  the  detectives  knew  who  they  were,  ; 
and  knew  their  mission  so  well  that  they  described  the  conveyance  they  were  taking  to 
Northampton  and  how  they  were  going.  “The  news  caused  great  excitement,  etc.” 
Now,  on  Saturday,  February  5,  the  burglars,  that  entered  that  bank  were  so  well  known, 
that  their  movements  towards  Northampton  were  understood,  and  they  were  known  so 
well  that  the  avenues  they  were  coming  through  to  Northampton  were  well  known  to 
them.  Who  were  they  ?  They  could  trace  them  directly  to  Hartford,  and  from  Hart¬ 
ford  to  Springfield,  but,  gentlemen,  not  one  single  bit  of  testimony  have  the  detectives  or 
Edson  seen  fit  to  place  before  us,  which  was  known  to  them  at  that  date.  If  they  knew 
as  early  as  that,  that  these  burglars  were  coming  to  Springfield,  why  don’t  they  tell  us 
who  they  were  ?  If  they  knew  as  early  as  that,  why  don’t  they  bring  the  steamer  hands 
here,  and  tell  us  who  they  were,  and  what  sort  of  a  team  they  drove  ?  Why  don’t  they 
tell  us  where  the  horses  were  purchased  ?  And  when  they  got  to  Hartford,  and  . 
exchanged  their  horses  from  the  sleigh,  where  is  the  honest  hostler  that  made  the  ex¬ 
change  ?  And  who  can  identify  these  men  ?  Where  are  the  men  who  could  have 
followed  them  from  New  York  and  met  them  at  Springfield,  knowing  they  were  going  by 
slow  stages  with  a  team  ?  I  tell  you,  gentlemen,  there  is  something  wrong  right  here  ! 
There  is  something  concealed,  or  something  false.  The  whole  theory  of  the  government 
is,  that  two  men  did  come  here  from  New  York  on  Eeb.  5th,  and  the  detectives  knew  who 
they  were,  and  what  they  were  to  do,  and  that  whole  testimony  has  been  concealed  and 
kept  from  you.  I  ask  you  if  you  think  they  could  not  tell  w'ho  these  men  were,  j 
Didn’t  they  know  on  the  5th  day  of  February  ?  Couldn’t  they  have  told,  if  they  had  i 
chosen,  when  they  found  out  they  were  coming  for  the  securities  ?  Why  did  they  wait  | 
eighteen  months  before  they  summoned  that  innocent  West  Sexton  from  the  privacy  of 
his  hotel  to  express  the  opinion  that  Mr.  Scott  was  the  man  he  looked  over  on  a  certain  day  P 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


59 


I  would  like  to  hear  the  suppressed  testimony.  I  want  to  know  what  these  experts  have 
been  about  all  these  months.  I  want  to  know  why  they  havn’t  identified  the  men  whose 
movements  they  understood  as  early  as  the  5th  day  of  February  ?  Why  didn’t  they  prove 
that  Scott  and  Dunlap  were  the  men,  and  not  call  upon  West  Sexton  to  come  here  and 
swear  to  it  ?  Why  didn’t  they  tell  you  who  that  beardless  man  was,  with  a  shrug,  and  a 
hitch,  and  a  stoop  in  his  shoulders  ?  The  detectives  have  not  told  us  all  they  know. 
The  government  has  not  revealed  the  whole  thing,  the  most  important,  the  earliest  testi¬ 
mony  that  we  have  ever  heard  of,  they  have  hidden  from  you,  and  they  argue  upon  the 
testimony  of  such  men  as  William  D.  Edson  to  convict  these  men,  and  send  them  to  per¬ 
petual  confinement.  Do  you  blame  me  for  not  thinking  anything  of  the  detectives  ?  Do 
you  think  I  was  startled  here  to-day,  when  I  saw  those  two  women  come  upon  the  stand, 
when  I  knew  from  the  public  documents  that  are  published  in  newspapers,  that  the  most 
important  and  conclusive  testimony  that  this  whole  case  has  produced,  was  suppressed, 
and  crowded  out,  and  trampled  under  foot  and  concealed,  that  you  might  make  up  an 
unjust  verdict  ?  These  are  not  the  men  who  came  on  that  steamboat,  these  are  not  the 
men  that  they  telegraphed  about  ;  that  they  watched  at  the  wharves  in  New  York  and 
New  Haven,  and  warned  the  men  against  in  Northampton  •  it  was  somebody  else,  and 
where  are  they  ?  Not  one  word  from  the  government,  not  one  single  bit  of  explanation 
of  the  paragraph  in  the  paper,  that  is  fitted  to  the  whole  theory  of  the  government,  that 
these  men  were  known  to  them.  No,  gentlemen,  the  men  that  are  meant  are  such  men 
as  Sexton,  as  Holt,  as  Crafts,  recognized.  I  tell  you,  gentlemen,  yesterday  the  court  re¬ 
fused  the  evidence  of  a  witness,  because  he  would  not  tell  his  accomplices  in  a  burglary. 
I  ask  you  what  a  Massachusetts  jury  are  going  to  do  with  the  testimony  of  detectives 
who  confess  they  are  concealing  from  yon  what  they  know  is  most  important.  I  ask  you 
if  you  will  put  faith  in  such  men,  who  will  trifle,  while  the  lives  of  men  like  these  are  in 
danger.  I  ask  you  if  I  am  to  blame  when  I  talk  to  you  about  persons  actuated  by  bad 
motives  and  the  hope  of  reward,  when  such  a  startling  piece  of  concealment  of  testimony 
as  this  is  discovered  in  the  case. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  believe  I  have  been  over  the  whole  testimony  of  Edson,  and  the 
corroborating  circumstances.  The  testimony  of  Edson  is  like  a  polished  shaft.  There 
was  no  point  about  it.  There  is  nothing  that  will  attach  itself  to  it,  except  what  he  sees 
fit  to  attach.  There  are  two  points  of  contradiction.  He  keeps  everything  well  in  hand. 
What  he  sees  fit  to  corroborate,  he  fixes  a  corroboration,  and  then,  gentlemen,  you  might 
as  well  attempt  to  attach  somethimg  by  mere  adhesion  to  a  piece  of  polished  steel,  as  to 
attach  anything  to  Edson ’s  testimony.  It  stands  out  as  solitary  as  a  liberty  pole  ! 

Review  of  the  Testimony  for  the  Defense. 

Gentlemen,  out  of  this  arena  of  contradictions,  of  disputes,  of  falsehoods,  away  from 
the  presence  of  this  arch  conspirator,  and  the  atmosphere  that  he  breathes  and  defiles, 
let  us  step  upon  firm  ground,  where  we  can  breathe  pure  air  and  meet  honest  faces. 
The  testimony  that  is  offered  here  by  the  defense,  is  the  testimony  to  which  we  invite 
your  scrutiny,  with  confidence  and  with  pleasure.  It  is  not,  gentlemen,  what  is  termed 
a  professional  or  artificial  alibi.  It  is  not  the  ordinary  manufactured  article.  It  was  not 
prepared  by  contract  in  the  city  of  New  York.  It  was  prepared,  so  far  as  we  know,  under 
the  direction,  or  rather  it  is  the  result  of  the  examination  which  Mr.  Bond  gave  to  it  in 
New  York.  Into  the  corruption  of  the  city,  something  of  the  simplicity,  of  the  purity, 
of  our  country  life,  went  where  this  testimony  was  prepared.  There  is  nothing,  gentle¬ 
men,  there  is  no  suggestion  of  corruption  or  fraud  in  the  source  of  it,  or  in  the  elements 
of  it,  or  the  purposes  of  it.  It  has,  gentlemen,  the  sanction  of  honest  investigation  from 
one  of  your  best  citizens,  and  one  of  whom  you  may  be  proud.  Its  very  imperfection 
aids  its  perfection.  If  it  were  more  perfect,  if  it  were  more  complete,  more  positive,  we 
might  think  that  some  other  hand  than  Mr.  Bond’s  had  guided  and  riveted  it  together, 
and  such  as  it  is,  gentlemen,  imperfect  in  some  details,  perfect  in  others,  such  as  it  is, 
gentlemen,  such  evidence  as  it  is,  coming  from  old  men  and  young  men,  from  old  women 
and  young  women,  from  every  variety  of  classes  in  New  York,  which  each  of  these  wit¬ 
nesses  represents,  it  is  yours — to  be  presented  to  you  and  to  enter  into  your  judgment  and 
your  mind  in  making  up  your  verdict.  Bear,  then,  in  mind,  if  you  believe  it,  if  you  be¬ 
lieve  any  single  fact  in  it  ;  nay,  if  it  leads  you  to  doubt  one  single  fact  in  the  testimony 
offered  by  the  government,  then  the  whole  fabric  which  Edson  has  built  up  tumbles  to  the 
ground. 


60 


TBIAXi  OF  THE  NOBTHAMPTON  BANK  EOBBEBS. 


In  this  place,  gentlemen,  the  evidence  upon  the  one  side  or  the  other  is  all  true  or  all 
false.  Mr.  Scott  cannot  be  in  two  places  at  one  time.  Mr.  Scott  did  not  have  a  shaven 
and  an  unshaven  face  at  the  same  time.  It  is  all  true,  or  it  is  all  false.  Believe  one  fact 
in  this  alibi,  one  of  the  witnesses  that  are  called  here  speaking  the  truth — believe  any  fact 
that  we  have  attempted  to  prove,  and  all  this  great  structure  which  has  been  built  up 
here  and  sustained  by  the  detectives,  falls  to  the  ground.  The  truth  must  be  consistent 
with  itself,  and  believe  that  there  is  an  honest  witness  that  we  have  summoned  here,  and 
the  sanction  of  your  verdict  rests  upon  the  defense. 

Now,  gentlemen,  we  come  to  the  testimony  of  these  witnesses,  and  first  that  of  the 
young  boy,  the  second  was  the  young  girl,  and  then  Mrs.  Ballou  and  Miss  Ballou,  and  the 
others  that  we  have  brought  here.  They  were  not  witnesses,  gentlemen,  that  were  ex¬ 
pected  to  stand  the  sharpest  cross-examination,  unless  they  came  telling  the  truth.  I 
would  never  have  ventured  to  put  that  ignorant  McCue  on  the  stand,  unless  he  was  forti¬ 
fied  with  the  truth,  and  could  stand  a  cross-examination.  We  never  could  have  put  Miss 
Amelia  Wood  on  the  stand,  willing  to  tell  all  she  knew,  incapable  of  withholding  any¬ 
thing,  unless  she  had  about  her,  like  a  shield,  the  panoply  of  truth.  We  should  never 
have  placed  the  honest  Mr.  Nasvius  upon  the  stand,  who  came  there  recognizing  the 
scholarship  of  my  Brother  Gillett,  bestowing  upon  him  the  compliment  which  those  of 
us  who  knew  him,  know  was  so  well  deserved  ;  we  never  should  have  placed  him  on  the 
stand,  unless  we  knew  that  he  was  fortified  with  the  consciousness  that  he  was  telling  the 
truth. 

Now,  what  is  it  that  these  witnesses  swear  to  ?  They  were  there — and.  there  was  the 
Pole,  whom  I  had  forgotten.  They  saw  Scott  through  the  months  of  December,  January 
and  February.  Two  things  they  swear  to.  They  swear,  all  of  them,  that  he  wore  a  full 
beard,  and  that  he  was  lame.  I  need  not  stop  to  recite  the  details  of  their  testimony,  or 
to  repeat  their  names  in  detail.  Every  one  of  them — every  one  of  them  confirms  this 
fact,  that  could  escape  the  notice  of  none  of  them  that  he  was  lame,  and  that  he  wore  a 
full  beard.  These  two  leading  facts  are  the  particular  and  peculiar  facts  that  all  the  wit¬ 
nesses  swear  to,  because  those  were  the  things  that  were  at  all  times  open  to  observation 
— the  lameness  and  the  full  beard.  The  boy  who  came  upon  the  stand,  in  the  untrained 
way  that  he  did,  and  would  have  left  it  with  an  error  upon  his  lips,  if  he  had  not  been 
corrected  by  Mr.  Gillett ;  Amelia  Wood,  in  her  simple  and  almost  flighty  way  ;  the  Pole, 
Mr.  Decker,  Mr.  Naevius,  Mr.  Davis,  all  of  them  recognized  and  saw  Mr.  Scott  during  the 
months  of  December,  January,  February  and  March,  and  every  one  of  them,  as  I  say, 
positively  swears  to  two  leading  things  of  observation,  the  whole,  full  beard  and  the  lame¬ 
ness.  Now,  gentlemen,  if  he  had  a  full  beard,  he  was  not  the  man  that  Holt 
described  and  saw,  that  Mr.  Crafts  and  Mr.  Mantor  saw,  or  the  man  that 
Edson  says  came  to  Northampton.  Admitting  that  fact,  gentlemen,  he 
is  not  the  man  that  came  here,  and  when  Edson  says  that  he  wore  a  shaven 
face  at  that  time,  then  Edson  is  not  only  lying  about  other  matters,  but  is  lying  in  your 
face  in  the  testimony  that  he  produces,  then  in  order  to  receive  confirmation  from  these 
other  witnesses.  Take  the  fact  of  his  lameness,  the  matter  of  his  lameness.  Each  one 
of  these  witnesses  remembers  it,  and  Decker,  by  the  little  circumstance  that  he  got  in  his 
way  when  he  was  putting  on  the  string  on  the  piano  ;  and  Davis  has  the  cane  which  he 
had  been  carrying.  Now,  gentlemen,  I  find  some  confirmation  of  this,  in  what  was  ap¬ 
parently  a  bit  of  contradiction.  This  man  was  said  to  be  lame,  to  be  confined  to  his 
house,  and  the  fair  argument  was  that  if  he  was  lame  aud  confined  to  his  house,  he  could 
not  have  been  in  Mr.  Whittelsey’6  house  on  January  25.  Now,  what  do  we  find  ?  Decker 
says  he  was  at  his  store  on  the  14th  of  January.  He  don’t  say  how  he  got  there  ;  he 
might  have  rode  there  in  the  cars,  and  he  might  have  got  there  in  some  other  way,  but 
we  have  got  to  deal  with  the  fact  that  on  the  14th  of  January  Decker  says  he  was  at  the  store, 
and  some  of  these  gentlemen  sitting  at  this  table  thought  there  was  a  little  bit  of  con¬ 
fusion  about  that.  But  what  does  Miss  Amelia  Wood  swear  to  ?  That  he  was  hurt  on 
the  2d  day  of  January  ;  he  was  confined  to  his  house  a  week,  and  at  the  end  of  the  week 
he  began  to  go  out  a  little  at  a  time,  from  a  half  hour  to  an  hour,  and  so  on  until  he  was 
gone  an  hour  and  two  hours  at  a  time.  You  see  the  14th  day  of  January  was  more  than 
a  week;  it  was  two  weeks,  almost,  from  the  time  of  the  injury,  and  it  follows  right  along 
just  as  Miss  Amelia  Wood  said  it  did. 

Now,  gentlemen,  we  come  to  other  and  more  confirming  testimony.  Through  the 
whole  month  of  January  Miss  Amelia  Wood  was  at  the  house  of  her  sister.  During  all 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


61 


that  time  she  swears  to  you  positively  that  Scott  was  at  home  and  Dunlap  was  there  also. 
It  covers  the  whole  time,  and  so  far  as  anything  is  known  positively  in  this  case,  Miss 
Amelia  Wood  was  there  during  the  month  of  January,  and  left  on  the  31st  day  of  Jan¬ 
uary.  We  have  here  the  simple  Pole  who  tells  us  he  would  have  been  here  if  he  had  the 
money,  and  says  it  with  significance,  that  there  is  not  a  great  deal  of  money  spent  on  the 
part  of  this  defense,  and  that  they  have  not  much  money  to  spend  in  the  preparation  of 
this  case.  We  hear  of  Davis  repairing  their  clothes,  and  turning  the  lappels  and  cutting 
over  garments,  and  of  their  practicing  and  exercising  an  economy  that  don’t  fit  very  well 
to  Edson’s  story  that  they  were  giving  ten  thousand  dollars  for  the  loan  of  a  thousand. 
These  little  domestic  scenes,  and  this  insight  into  their  domestic  life  shows  how  they  were 
practicing  economy  in  cutting  over  their  clothing,  and  living  with  economy,  paying  for 
their  pianos  on  installments  of  ten  or  twenty  dollars  a  month,  don’t  look  like  the  people 
who  are  rolling  in  wealth  and  breaking  and  cracking  a  bank  a  fortnight.  Now  I  find  that 
this  Pole  was  there  through  every  month  on  Monday  and  Thursday.  If  there  had  been 
an  alibi  prepared,  if  we  had  the  genuine  manufactured  article  made  to  order  in  the  city 
of  New  York,  somehow  or  other  those  lessons  in  music  would  have  been  given  on  Tues¬ 
days  and  Wednesdays,  and  covered  the  precise  time  that  Scott  was  supposed  to  be  here. 
But  this  man,  with  great  honesty,  says  he  was  there  on  Mondays  and  Thursdays,  and 
Scott  was  at  home  every  Monday  of  that  month,  and  that  he  dined  there.  It  is  only  sig¬ 
nificant,  because  if  what  this  Polish  musician  says  is  ti-ue,  Holt,  who  says  he  thinks  he 
saw  them  in  Springfield  on  the  same  day  is  not  true.  Then  we  have  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Decker,  who  tells  you  he  was  there  on  the  25th  of  January  ;  that  in  playing  on  the  piano 
he  broke  a  string,  and  he  was  obliged  to  mend  it  on  the  26th,  because  Mrs.  Scott  took  her 
music  lessons  on  Thursday,  the  27th.  Now,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Decker, 
Mr.  Scott  was  there.  He  remembers  the  conversations  on  the  evenings  of  the  25th  and 
26th  of  January,  and  he  remembers  that  Scott  was  lame  and  got  in  his  way  while  he  was 
trying  to  mend  the  string.  If  this  testimony  is  true,  if  Decker  is  to  be  believed,  if  he  is 
more  trusty  than  this  Edson,  then  it  is  the  end  of  the  case  for  the  defense.  One  month 
afterwards,  a  few  weeks  afterwards,  he  goes  to  Mrs.  and  Miss  Ballou's,  and  there  he  is 
lame  ;  and  on  the  18th  day  of  March,  on  the  20th  and  22d,  he  goes  to  Mr.  Nsevius  as  a 
student,  and  Mr.  Naevius  tells  us  that  among  the  first  things  that  Scott  did  when  he  took 
his  seat  in  a  chair  was  to  ask  permission  that  he  might  rest  his  foot  in  another  chair,  be¬ 
cause  his  foot  was  lame.  I  leave  it  to  you,  gentlemen,  to  say  whether  that  was  natural  or 
not  ;  I  leave  it  to  you  to  say  whether  you  think  Mr.  Naevius  was  telling  a  false  story  to 
you  or  not.  Take  all  of  these  witnesses,  gentlemen,  who  have  testified  here  ;  some  of 
them  have  been  about  here  a  week,  and  some  of  them  two  weeks.  They  all  testified  and 
answered  to  their  names  Friday  or  Saturday.  The  detectives  have  followed  them  to  Nerv 
York  ever  since  ;  they  have  had  Saturday  and  Sunday  and  Monday  to  investigate  them. 
The  thirty  employes  of  Pinkerton  have  been  at  hand,  and  if  anything  could  be  brought 
against  them,  if  anything  could  be  suggested  against  them,  it  would  have  been  produced 
here.  You  see  how  indefatigable  these  men  have  been  ;  you  see  with  what  diligence  they 
have  pushed  their  inquiries.  If  there  could  have  been  one  word  said  against  Amelia 
Wood  or  Rosa  Ballou  ;  if  there  could  have  been  one  word  said  against  the  Pole,  whose 
name  I  cannot  pronounce,  or  against  Decker,  or  against  Nasvius,  they  would  have  brought 
it  out.  Not  a  word,  not  a  suggestion  comes  from  anybody,  unless  it  is  the  suggestion  of 
my  Brother  Gillett,  which  even  the  detectives  don’t  dare  to  confirm  or  sanction.  I  leave 
it  to  you  as  gentlemen,  I  leave  it  to  you  as  fathers  and  men,  some  of  whom  have  daugh¬ 
ters  at  home,  whether  it  was  a  fair  inquiry  that  my  Brother  Gillett  put  to  these’  young 
women  as  they  came  upon  this  stand  and  faced  this  audience  ;  if  it  was  sanctioned  by  a 
single  bit  of  testimony  that  had  been  offered  here  or  can  be  put  up  against  them.  Heave 
it  to  you,  gentlemen,  if  there  was  anything  about  them  or  their  evidence  that  was  calcu¬ 
lated  to  carry  a  stain,  and  I  was  glad  that  the  remark  which  was  made  was  addressed  in 
the  presence  of  jurors  who  have  daughters  at  home  as  young,  if  not  as  handsome,  as  she 
is.  I  think  that  some  of  the  reporters  who  are  here  to-day,  if  they  review  their  reports 
about  it,  will  find  I  have  not  suggested  anything  about  Mr.  Gillett’s  cross-examination  of 
them  that  is  not  true.  But  against  honesty,  against  truth,  against  virtue,  the  attacks  of 
these  detectives  utterly  fail,  and  they  have  come  back  from  New  York  to-day  despairing 
and  powerless  against  the  array  of  witnesses  that  we  have  brought  here.  Not  disarmed, 
out  of  the  stables  and  the  depths  of  New  York,  they  have  brought  one  man  and  two 
women  ;  one  man  to  impeach  Rosa  Ballou.  He  says  he  remembers  seeing  her  with  Scott 


62 


TRIAL  OF  THU  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBER8. 


at  the  stables  some  years  ago,  when  Scott  was  keeping  his  horse  there  ;  in  1874  he  fixes  it. 
And  that  is  all. 

Now,  gentlemen,  weigh  this  testimony.  It  is  the  duty  of  jurors  not  simply  to  hear,  but 
to  see  the  witness,  and  there  they  are  now  ;  you  see  the  witnesses  before  you.  They  have 
been  in  this  and  the  other  trial  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  and  I  ask  yon  to  decide  the 
question  according  to  the  law  and  the  evidence,  according  to  the  preponderance  of  the 
testimony,  according  as  it  has  come  before  you,  to  convince  you  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt.  Lay  aside  all  bias  and  prejudice  and  weigh  this  testimony,  and  tell  me  the  con¬ 
clusion  that  it  reaches.  I  say  these  detectives  utterly  failed  to  attack  or  impeach  one  of 
these  witnesses,  and  they  have  done  another  thing  that  confirms  and  strengthens  what 
my  Brother  Bond  describes  this  to  be,  the  detectives’  case.  They  came  here  with  two 
servant  girls,  with  testimony  that  should  have  been  put  in  chief  of  the  testimony  they 
had.  It  was  testimony  that  was  intended  to  connect  Scott  and  Dunlap  immediately  with 
the  crime.  It  was  testimony  calculated  to  prove  that  Scott  and  Dunlap  were  in  league 
with  bank  breakers.  That  they  were  not  in  New  York,  but  somewhere  else,  when  the 
robbery  took  place.  That  belonged  initially  to  the  testimony  in  chief  ;  but  when  our 
alibi  became  invincible  ;  when  our  witnesses  were  found  to  be  honest  and  could  not  be 
disturbed  ;  when  they  failed,  gentlemen,  as  all  in  this  court  room  know  they  had  failed 
to  fix  the  crime  upon  these  men,  they  produced  two  new  witnesses,  two  women,  and  what 
is  peculiar  about  it,  they  simply  cover  the  time  from  the  26th  of  January  to  the  15th  of 
February.  Just  the  precise  time  ;  not  a  day  over  and  not  a  day  under.  From  the  23d, 
somewhere  about  there,  until  the  12th  of  February,  these  women  were  where  they  came 
from.  Who  these  women  were,  where  they  come  from,  in  whose  employ  they  are,  and 
whither  they  will  return,  I  do  not  know.  But  I  know  it  is  very  strange  that  two  women 
could  be  found  ;  because  one  was  not  sufficient,  two  must  be  had  ;  that  they  were  to 
work  in  that  house,  one  a  week  and  four  days,  and  the  other  just  ten  days.  It  is  pecu¬ 
liar  that  they  were  not  contented  with  one  ;  they  had  one  to  confirm  the  other.  They 
wanted  two.  What  would  Maggie  do  alone  if  it  were  not  for  the  other  ?  You  see  how  it 
happened  that  there  are  two  instead  of  one.  Mark  you,  gentlemen,  how  quick  and  how 
glib  this  second  one  swears.  She  is  thinking  of  what  took  place  over  a  year  ago,  two 
years  ago  nearly,  and  as  she  tells  over  and  over  again  that  Scott  was  as  home  all  the  month 
of  January,  over  and  again  she  tells  that  Scott  was  at  home,  until  she  finally  remembers 
that  he  went  away  on  Saturday  night  and  she  opened  the  door  for  him  on  Wednesday 
morning.  How  it  helps  Holt,  and  Crafts,  and  the  rest  of  them  1  Exactly,  she  remembers 
being  at  the  house  but  a  week  and  four  days,  how  on  Saturday  she  saw  Scott  go  out  and 
on  W  ednesday  come  home.  Why,  gentlemen,  if  the  government  had  had  this  testimony, 
and  they  profess  they  had  it,  they  certainly  would  have  put  it  on  the  stand. 

And  so,  gentlemen,  I  have  been  over  all  the  testimony  that  I  propose  to  review,  and  I 
think  I  can  imagine  that  you  ask  why  Scott  and  Dunlap  and  Mrs.  Scott  are  not  put  on 
the  stand  ?  Why  are  not  Scott  and  Dunlap  and  Mrs.  Scott  upon  the  stand  ?  I  ask  you  in 
all  seriousness,  gentlemen,  what  good  the  testimony  of  these  people  would  be  in  proving 
their  innocence  ?  If  they  are  guilty,  would  they  confess  it  ?  If  they  are  innocent,  they  are 
to  be  proved  innocent  from  other  lips  than  theirs.  I  have  been  here  through  this  trial, 
gentlemen,  and  I  knew  nothing  of  it  before  I  came  here.  I  have  seen  the  evidence  unfold 
itself,  for  the  first  time,  as  it  has  been  unfolded  to  you.  I  have  been  reaching  out  for  the 
truth  to  know  where  it  lay,  endeavoring  to  discover  the  real  facts  in  this  case,  and  I  have 
never  asked  Dunlap  and  Scott  or  Mrs.  Scott  about  it.  I  have  never  spoken  to  these  men. 
I  never  have  heard  their  voices,  except  when  they  were  challenging  the  jury.  They  could 
add  by  their  word  nothing  for  me,  either  for  or  against  them.  If  I  am,  in  my  heart  to  be¬ 
lieve  that  these  men  are  innocent,  I  should  gather  no  truth  of  their  innocence -by  what 
they  might  protest  to  me.  Do  you  think  I  would  ask  Mrs.  Scott  if  her  husband  was  an 
innocent  or  guilty  man  ?  Do  you  think  I  would  allow  her  to  tell  me  that  she  thought  they 
were  t  Do  you  think  if  I  had  this  conviction  brought  home  to  my  mind,  that  I  coulcl 
stand  here  and  look  you  in  the  face  and  charge  you  as  honest  men,  administering  the  laws 
of  the  Commonwealth,  to  acquit  these  people.  I  tell  you,  gentlemen,  I  never  yet  called  a 
prisoner  to  the  stand.  I  never  have  been  through  the  farce,  and  I  could  not  be  here  to 
ask  that  these  men  might  have  their  shackles  taken  off  and  go  upon  the  stand  and  declare 
their  innocence  to  you.  Their  testimony  would  be  utterly  worthless.  When  Prof.  Web¬ 
ster  was  tried  for  the  murder  of  Dr.  Parkman,  his  two  daughters  went  upon  the  stand, 
and  there  delivered  important  testimony.  The  lawyers  for  the  government  asked  no 


TRIAL  OR  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


63 


questions. '  They  bowed  them  gracefully  from  the  stand,  because  they  knew  that  from  the 
lips  of  those  daughters,  pleading  for  the  life  of  their  father,  no  testimony  could  come  that 
would  weigh  with  the  jurors.  And  so,  gentlemen,  as  I  said  before,  I  could  not  have  these 
men  unshackled  to  protest  their  innocence  to  you.  They  are  to  be  cleared  by  honest  tes¬ 
timony,  or  not  at  all.  What  for  us,  is  of  the  most  concern,  is  that  they  have  a  fair  trial. 
And  if  they  went  upon  the  stand,  gentlemen, what  could  they  do  but  deny  the  testimony 
of  Edson,  that  he  met  them  on  Lexington  avenue  and  50th  street,  or  Madison  avenue,  at 
Red  Leary’s,  and  Fort  Hamilton,  that  they  came  here  ?  The  plea  of  not  guilty  covers  the 
whole,  and  the  courts  have  settled,  so  great  is  this  right  of  the  prisoner,  that  a  jury  are 
net  to  draw  an  inference,  because  the  prisoners  don’t  go  upon  the  stand. 

Gentlemen,  this  has  been  a  fearful  fight.  The  odds  of  the  controversy  have  been  ter¬ 
rible.  On  the  one  side,  come  three  young  men,  confined  in  prison,  without  friends,  and 
possibly,  I  do  not  know,  as  their  friends  could  have  aided  them,  if  they  had  called  them. 
On  the  other,  come  all  the  resources  of  the  Commonwealth,  that  of  the  capital  of  the 
bank,  experienced  and  successful  counsel  who  had  been  selected  against  them,  with  the 
most  diligent,  possibly  the  most  unscrupulous,  detectives  following  in  their  wake.  None 
of  us,  gentlemen,  envy  you  your  position.  Look  into  the  faces  of  these  young  men.  If 
by  your  verdict  they  are  never  again  to  see  the  light  of  the  sun,  or  the  moon,  or  the  stars; 
if  they  are  never  again  to  look  into  the  faces  or  hear  the  voices  of  those  they  love;  if  they 
are  to  go  into  perpetual  confinement,  from  which  there  is  no  escape,  and  where  hope  can¬ 
not  enter, — see  to  it,  that  your  verdict  is  so  free  from  bias,  and  prejudice,  and  doubt ;  so 
sustained  by  the  law,  and  the  evidence,  that  when  these  men  are  wasting  and  dying  in 
gloom  and  in  silence,  you  may  recall  it  in  the  future  years  without  fear  and  without 
reproach. 

At  the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Leonard’s  argument,  which  occupied  two  hours  and  forty-five 
minutes  in  delivery,  and  was  listened  to  throughout  by  a  crowded  court  room  with  the 
closest  attention,  the  court  adjourned  to  Wednesday  morning,  at  9  o’clock,  at  which  time 
the  court  room  was  again  densely  crowded,  to  listen  to  the  closing  argument  by  Mr. 
Gillett. 

Argument  of  Hon.  E.  B.  Gillett,  of  Westfield,  for  the  Prosecution. 

May  it  please  your  Honor,  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury : 

I  come  to  yon  this  morning  in  ill  health,  the  result  of  about  two  weeks  of  pretty  stren¬ 
uous  labor  in  these  summer  heats  and  in  this  suffocating  room.  It  will  have  this  advan¬ 
tage  to  you  that,  instead  of  following  the  minute  brief  of  facts  and  statistics  which  I  had 
prepared,  I  shall  address  you  much  more  briefly,  and  I  fear  much  more  feebly,  than  I  had 
hoped  to.  My  Brother  Leonard,  in  his  introduction  to  his  very  eloquent  and  consummate 
argument,  suggested  to  you  with  what  misgivings  and  with  what  regrets  he  entered  upon 
the  trial  of  this  case.  I  am  confident  that  he  could  not  have  entered  upon  his  duties  with 
any  more  of  misgivings  than  I  myself  did,  or  with  any  more  of  reluctance.  But  I  did 
not  feel  at  liberty  to  decline  the  request  that  was  made  to  me  by  the  learned  District  At¬ 
torney  of  this  district.  This  being  my  native  county  ;  this  being  the  county  where  my 
father  and  mother  lived  and  are  buried  ;  this  being  the  town  where  I  pursued  my  pro¬ 
fessional  studies  with  one  of  its  most  distinguished  men,  and  whose  name  I  partly  bear, 
and  for  myself  I  have  no  higher  ambition  than  that  I  may  bring  no  discredit  upon  his 
honored  memory.  With  these  facts  before  me,  I  could  not,  in  conscience,  offer  any  ade¬ 
quate  excuse  for  declining  to  render  such  aid  as  I  could  in  endeavoring  to  detect  and  bring 
to  discovery  a  gigantic  felony,  which  had  thrilled  the  whole  country  with  alarm.  Before 
entering  upon  a  discussion  of  the  merits  of  this  case,  Mr.  Foreman,  let  us  clear -away  a 
little  one  or  two  of  the  delusions  which  my  brother  indulged  himself  with  in  his  argu¬ 
ment,  and  which  seem  to  have  been  thrust  into  prominence  before  you  during  the  whole  of 
this  trial.  You  would  infer  from  argument,  and  from  testimony,  and  from  endeavor  of 
counsel,  not  that  these  two  defendants  were  here  on  trial,  but  that  William  D.  Edson  was 
the  man  whom  you  are  trying.  And  my  learned  brother  seemed  to  think  that,  having- 
denounced  him,  and  having  brought  him  into  ignominy,  and  having  announced  that 
“Edson  is  the  whole  of  this  case,”  and  having  proved  that  he  was  infamous,  there  was 
nothing  else  for  the  defendants  to  do. 

Mr.  Foreman,  and  gentlemen,  I  take  no  issue  with  the  learned  gentleman  with  regard 
to  Mr.  Edson.  He  has  said  nothing,  which,  if  I  should  draw  his  picture,  has  added  one 


64 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


deepening  line  or  damning  shade  to  his  photograph.  I  admit,  Mr.  Foreman,  his  villainy. 
Admit,  if  you  please,  for  the  sake  of  this  trial,  that  from  his  boyhood  down  to  to-day  his 
life  has  been  a  systematic  sinniug  of  the  Decalogue  through  and  through,  and  that  he  has 
exhausted  the  criminal  calendar.  I  admit  it  all ;  every  word  ;  and  if  there  is  any  “lower 
deep”  of  infamy  into  which  I  could  plunge  him  than  my  brother  has  placed  him,  I  would 
gladly  offer  mv  aid  to  explore  its  depths.  But,  gentlemen,  Edson  is  not  on  trial.  There 
are  the  men  that  we  are  to  deal  with.  My  learned  friend,  in  his  very  graceful  opening 
argument  of  this  case,  stated  to  you  certain  principles  of  law  by  which  you  are  to  be  guid¬ 
ed  in  the  investigation  of  this  cause,  and  he  grouped  about  the  prisoners  certain  legal 
principles,  all  of  which  are  true,  but  stated  in  language  disconnected  from  the  context, 
convey  different  rules  of  law  from  that  which  really  exist.  In  the  first  place,  my  learned 
friend  suggested  to  you  that  yon  could  not  convict  these  prisoners  unless  they  were  proved 
to  be  guilty  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  and  then  went  on  to  designate  the  difference  be- 
tween  proofs  required  in  civil  and  the  criminal  courts.  I  agree,  gentlemen,  that  the  de¬ 
fendants  are  to  be  proved  guilty  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.  But  in  every  human  tribu¬ 
nal  it  is  impossible  to  arrive  at  infallible  results.  In  everything  appertaining  to  judicial 
proceedings  we  must  content  ourselves  without  the  aid  of  demonstration.  It  is  only  in 
the  science  appertaining  to  mathematics  and  physics  that  processes  can  be  carried  on 
which  the  result  shall  be  demonstrated  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt.  Your  doubts, 
if  you  have  anv,  must  be  reasonable  doubts,  and  by  that  is  meant  doubts  that  are  well 
founded;  not  whimsical  doubts;  not  doubts  that  any  man  can  create  about  anything. 
You  remember  that  there  was  one  of  the  Apostles  who  said  that  “unless  I  see  in  his 
hands  the  print  of  the  nails,  and  put  my  finger  into  the  print  of  the  nails,  I  will  not  be¬ 
lieve  ;”  and  he  thereby  made  his  folly  immortal,  and  from  that  day,  and  for  nineteen  hun¬ 
dred  years,  he  has  been  taunted  as  the  “Doubting  Apostle.”  But  it  has  been  urged  that 
every  man  is  presumed  to  be  innocent  until  he  is  proved  to  be  guilty,  and  that  this  pano¬ 
ply  is  around  him.  Agreed.  But  what  is  this  presumption  of  innocence  ?  Simply,  Mr. 
Foreman,  that  it  is  more  probable  that  a  man  may  not  commit  a  crime  than  that  he  will, 
and  that  is  the  whole  of  it ;  and  that  is  what  this  trite  maxim  of  law  means.  Again,  my 
friend  endeavored  to  impress  upon  you  that  these  men  came  here  with  positively  good 
characters,  and  a  character  as  good”  as  that  of  any  gentleman  upon  the  panel,  or  of  any 
counsel  in  this  case.  I  take  issue.  I  agree,  Mr.  Foreman,  that  the  law  presumes  that 
every  man  bears  a  good  character  ;  that  the  law  presumes  that  when  criminals  are  arraign¬ 
ed,  charged  with  a  criminal  offense,  they  are  innocent  of  this  and  every  other  crime. 
Therefore  the  law  says  that  they  do  stand  before  you  with  good  characters.  But  when  it 
is  alleged  that  they  have  a  positive  character  as  good  as  yours  or  mine,  or  my  brother’s,  1 
deny  it.  Suppose,  Mr.  Foreman,  you  were  charged  with  a  crime  ;  suppose  circumstances 
gathered  around  you  pointing  to  your  guilt  ;  suppose  you  were  about  to  sink  beneath  the 
waves  of  suspicion  that  were  closing  over  you.  What  would  be  done  ?  Your  friends  and 
your  neighbors  would  come  rallying  around  you  with  the  testimony  of  a  good  and  perfect 
character,  the  product  of  a  pure  and  upright  life,  and  would  send  out  this  rope  into  the 
waves  and  say  to  you,  “grasp  it,  and  we  will  bring  you  to  the  shore.”  Any  such  charac¬ 
ter  here  ?  These,  gentlemen,  are  the  legal  maxims  which  the  learned  counsel  has  thrown 
about  the  prisoners,  and  which  you  would  suppose  furnished  an  impenetrable  panoply,  aud 
that  these  prisoners  stood  before  you  like  Achilles,  with  only  a  single  point  anywhere,  that 
is  vulnerable,  through  which  the  shafts  of  truth  could  penetrate  and  touch  them.  Not  at 
all.  The  certainty  which  is  necessary  to  decide  that  a  man  is  guilty  of  a  crime  is  the 
same  certainty  which  is  necessary  to  determine  every  man  in  the  important  transactions  of 
life,  and  nothing  more.  You  are  not,  because  you  are  jurymen,  in  any  other  condition  of 
mind  as  to  the  reception  of  evidence  and  as  to  the  reception  of  truth,  than  you  would  be 
if  you  were  out  of  the  jury  box.  Yrou  bring  no  other  apparatus  of  faculties  to  try  this 
case  than  such  as  you  employ  in  the  most  important  transactions  of  everyday  life.  The 
rights  of  man,  and  the  rights  of  property  everywhere,  and  always,  must  be  determined  by 
probabilities,  and  that  evidence  which  should  satisfy  a  man’s  judgment  and  convictions, 
when  lie  is  at  home,  in  affairs  of  great  moment,  touching  his  own  liberty  or  property,  are 
sufficient  for  you  in  the  performance  of  your  grave  duties  here. 

Now,  gentlemen,  with  these  preliminary  suggestions  let  us  proceed  to  the  consideration 
of  some  of  the  facts  and  features  of  the  case.  The  evidence  against  the  defendants  is 
two-fold,  consisting  in  the  first  place  of  tire  story  of  William  D.  Edson,  and  consisting,  in 
the  second  place,  of  the  evidence  outside  of  his  story.  A.s  has  been  said  by  my  learned 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


65 


brother,  and  truly  said,  the  evidence  of  Edson  is  to  be  received  with  great  suspicion,  and 
with  caution.  Here  and  now  I  beg  leave  to  say  to  you  that  we  don’t  ask  you  to  touch  a 
hair  of  these  prisoners’  heads  unless  it  is  by  other  evidence  than  the  testimony  of  Edson  ; 
unless  his  story  is  confirmed  and  corroborated  in  many  particulars,  and  important  partic¬ 
ulars,  by  corroborating  and  confirming  testimony.  And  here,  gentlemen,  let  me  say  that 
this  class  of  evidence  is  often  indispensible  in  the  investigation  of  crimes,  from  the  very 
nature  of  crime.  The  government  cannot  select  the  style  of  testimony  that  it  will  pre¬ 
sent  to  a  jury.  The  government  is  obliged  to  accept  the  best  testimony  that  is  presented 
to  it.  It  cannot  choose  its  agents  for  the  revelation  of  truth.  Burglars  and  thieves  and 
robbers  don’t  take  with  them  the  judges  of  our  courts  and  the  ministers  of  the  gospel, 
nor  the  Selectmen  of  your  towns,  when  they  are  about  to  commit  some  great  crime  against 
the  community,  nor  do  they  make  them  the  recipients  of  their  confidence.  No,  if  they 
did  it  would  give  us  great  pleasure  to  present  to  you  a  higher  class  of  testimony  than  we 
are  obliged  to  employ.  Mr.  Foreman,  suppose  that  it  comes  to  your  experience  that  five 
men,  not  one  of  whose  names  or  persons  you  know,  should  come  to  your  farm  or  to  your 
home,  or  to  yours,  or  yours,  or  yours,  gentlemen,  and  they  have  stolen  your  cattle,  and 
mutilated  your  horses,  burned  your  barns  and  your  houses,  and  there  is  no  trace  of 
the  guilty  agents.  In  the  course  of  time  it  is  developed  to  you  that  one  of  these,  perhaps 
the  ringleader  and  the  coward  of  them  all,  is  ready,  under  pressure  of  suspicion  or  from 
any  other  mean  motive,  to  reveal  to  you  who  the  other  parties,  his  peers  in  the  crime, 
were  ;  the  authors  and  perpetrators  of  the  deeds,  and  whom  you  had  sought  for  almost 
hopelessly,  and  that  they  were  still  at  large.  Do  you  think,  Mr.  Foreman,  that  you 
would  not  owe  it  to  yourself,  that  you  would  not  owe  it  to  the  public  and  to  justice, 
that  you  should  make  use  of  this  material  that  had  come  to  hand.  You  might 
bring  at  least  a  portion  of  the  men,  of  these  dangerous  men  who  were  still  preying 
upon  theYommunity,  to  condign  punishment.  The  great  object  of  judicial  inquiry,  Mr. 
Foreman,  like  all  other  researches  into  knowledge,  is  the  ascertaining  of  truth, 
ascertainment  of  truth.  And  we  must  go  after  the  truth  wherever  we  can  find  it,  even 
if  it  be  found  “in  the  bor.tom  of  the  well,”  or  further  down  toward  perdition  itself.  And 
here  let  me  say  that  truth  is  not  corrupted  by  the  medium  through  which  it  passes,  any 
more  than  light  is  corrupted  which  shines  upon  the  unjust  as  well  as  the  just.  The  lilies 
which  brighten  these  inland  lakes  of  ours,  are  no  less  immaculate  because  their  roots  are 
in  filth.  Poison,  the  deadliest  poison,  Mr.  Foreman,  is  often  a  specific  remedy  in  desper¬ 
ate  diseases.  I  am  aware  that  there  is  a  certain  sort  of  sentimentality,  developed  in  oui 
community,  now  and  then,  and  perhaps  in  reference  to  this  case,  if  rumor  is  to  be  cred¬ 
ited,  there  have  been  some  weak-minded,  imbecile  and  misled  people,  who  have  said  “it 
is  a  thousand  pities  that  such  elegant  gentlemen  as  these  should  be  convicted  by  the  tes¬ 
timony  of  a  scoundrel  like  Edson,”  as  if  the  conviction  of  a  felon  were  not  the  para¬ 
mount  thing.  Why,  1  infer  that  it  is  possible  that  there  are  some  ladies  in  this  town  who 
almost  envy  Mrs.  Whittelsey  the  luxury  of  having  enjoyed  four  hours  of  intimacy  and 
entertainment  with  these  elegant  ruffians  !  Mr.  Foreman,  that  sort  of  sentimentalism 
is  a  shame  to  human  nature.  They  seem  to  forget  that  the  men  who  stole  Mr.  Whittel- 
sey’s  watch  and  rifled  his  pockets  of  $15,  when  he  had  just  given  them  the  clew  to  a  mil¬ 
lion  of  property,  must  have  been  mere  “dunghill  fowls”  in  the  category  of  criminals. 

Mr.  Foreman,  let  us  recur  to  the  testimony  of  Edson  and  apply  to  it  some  of  the  ordinary 
tests  of  truth,  in  order  to  come  to  a  conclusion  whether  or  not  his  story  is  true  or  false. 
We  want  to  take  the  whole  story  ;  we  want  to  take  the  whole  fabric  of  his  testimony. 
And  here  let  me  suggest  to  you  that  the  most  wonderful  thing  about  this  story  of  Ed- 
son’s  is  this,  that  it  covers  such  extensive  territory,  extending  from  1872  down  to  Febru¬ 
ary,  down  to  December,  1876,  down  to  1877,  and  during  that  time  and  in  that  story,  he 
has  been  ready  to  open  to  you  the  whole  voluminous  diary  of  his  life,  and  he  has  chal¬ 
lenged  these  gentlemen  to  turn  it  over  leaf  by  leaf  down  to  to-day.  He  is  not  endeavor¬ 
ing  to  fasten  a  false  charge  upon  these  men.  He  has  not  selected  a  narrow  and  meager 
circle  of  facts,  and  shaped  his  testimony  in  reference  to  that.  He  has  not  said,  I  will 
pitch  on  a  single  occasion  and  make  all  surrounding  circumstances  conform  to,  and  fit  in 
with,  that,  and  upon  a  time  when  I  know  they  cannot  contradict  me. 

He  has  not  said,  I  can  put  myself  with  Scott,  and  I  can  put  myself  with  Connors,  and  I 
can  put  myself  with  Dunlap,  and  name  such  times  and  places  that  contradiction  will  be 
impossible.  Has  that  been  his  policy  ?  Not  at  all.  He  does  not  entrench  himself  be¬ 
hind  a  single  narrow  rampart,  but  he  exposes  the  whole  line  of  his  movements,  extending 


66 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


over  a  space  of  years,  and  invites  you  to  attack  him  anywhere.  Let  us  see.  Let  us  look 
and  see.  Why,  gentlemen,  I  find,  in  scanning  this  testimony,  that,  in  between  thirty 
and  forty  instances,  he  has  named  to  you  different  places  and  different  times,  giving  the 
exact  dates  and  localities,  that  he  has  met  Dunlap  and  Scott  and  Connors,  and  Dunlap 
alone,  and  Scott  alone,  and  Connors  alone,  in  connection  with  this  conspiracy,  which,  he 
says,  these  men  formed  with  each  other  and  with  him,  and  he  has  invited  them  to  attack 
him  anywhere,  and  I  ask  you  with  what  success  have  they  done  it  ?  To  run  over  some  of 
the  more  important  points  in  his  testimony,  some  of  the  most  salient,  we  find  that  he 
says,  in  the  first  place,  that  a  man  by  the  name  of  Ryan,  a  livery  stable  keeper,  who  lived 
in  New  York  then,  and  lives  in  New  York  now,  giving  his  place  of  business  then  and 
now,  first  brought  the  parties  together.  Then  he  goes  on  and  describes  what  happened 
then.  He  goes  on  and  informs  you,  also,  that  not  long  after  that  he  met  Scott  at  Elmira, 
and  that  Scott’s  name  was  falsely  entered  upon  the  register  of  the  hotel,  under  the  pseudo¬ 
nym  of  Bishop,  and  he  gives  the  date,  and  the  name  of  the  hotel.  He  tells  that  in  1874, 
Scott  and  Dunlap  robbed  the  Quincy  Bank,  and  that  Connors  came  and  paid  over  to  him 
what  he  claimed  was  his  distributive  share  of  the  plan.  He  said  that  immediately  after 
that,  he  and  Dunlap  and  Scott  and  Connors,  together,  had  another  interview  in  reference 
to  that  transaction,  giving  dates  and  places.  He  testifies  that  on  July  3,  1874,  he  was  at 
the  National  Bank  of  Syracuse,  and  at  a  certain  hotel,  and  that  there  he  made  certain 
plans  and  diagrams,  and  that  these  plans  and  diagrams  he  afterwards  gave  to  Dunlap. 
He  testifies  that  after  that,  on  the  4th  day  of  August,  by  the  request  of  these  men,  he 
came  to  Northampton,  and  that,  on  the  5th  day  of  August,  he  telegraphed  to  these  par¬ 
ties,  at  Wilkesbarre,  stating  that  he  would  be  there  at  a  certain  time,  if  he  received  a 
request  from  them.  He  testified  that  afterwards  he  had  a  telegram  from  Dunlap,  under 
the  name  he  had  given  him  of  R.  C.  Hill ;  and  mark,  while  it  occurs  to  me,  I  may  say, 
if  R.  C.  Hill  had  no  relations  to  these  parties,  and  they  are  as  ignorant  of  him  as  they 
claim  to  -be,  it  is  quite  suggestive  and  signiOcant  that  some  stranger  should  have  unwit¬ 
tingly  employed  the  initials  of  Scott's  name.  “  R.  C.”  We  find,  according  to  his  testi¬ 
mony,  that  he  went  to  Wilkesbarre,  and  remained  there  part  of  two  days.  Saw  Dunlap. 
Saw  Scott.  That  they  came  home.  That  he  gave  to  Scott  the  keys  which  he  had 
received  from  the  Northampton  Bank,  that  Scott  might  duplicate  them  for  his  own 
use.  And  we  find  that  after  that,  in  pursuance  of  that,  Scott  and  Dunlap  and 
Connors  were  at  Northampton  off  and  on  during  the  rest  of  August,  and  during  Sep¬ 
tember.  We  find  that  in  September,  one  Joseph  Locke  had  indicated  to  Herring  &  Co. 
that  the  lock  which  was  upon  the  Northampton  National  Bank  was  an  imperfect  i 
lock,  and,  in  consequence  of  that  information,  that  further  proceedings  at  Northampton 
were  unsafe  and  suspended.  We  find  that  afterwards,  at  their  request,  he  came  to 
Northampton,  aad  there  obtained  impressions  upon  a  piece  of  wax,  given  to  him 
by  Scott,  of  the  keys  of  the  Northampton  Bank.  We  gnd  that  they  imformed  him 
tnat  they  had  watched  Mr.  Whittelsey’s  house,  and  also  watched  the  movements  of 
the  bank,  and  discovered  that  the  watchman  was  withdrawn  as  early  as  four  o'clock  in 
the  morning.  We  find  that  they  made  preparations  to  enter  the  bank,  and  that  Dunlap  ; 
and  Scott  told  him  on  Sunday  that  they  were  going  to  start  that  night  for  Northampton,  ; 
and  expected  to  consummate  the  robbery  on  Monday  night,  but  that  it  was,  in  some  way,  ' 
interrupted,  explaining  to  you  just  how  it  happened  that  these  men  were  seen  at  | 
Springfield  on  Monday  and  Tuesday.  Then  we  find  that  on  the  26th  day  of  January 
Edson  was  at  Bristol,  and  that  there  he  received  a  telegram  from  Herring.  Herring’s 
books  confirm  him,  showing  that  he  was  not  there  the  day  before.  Then  you  will  remem¬ 
ber  that  on  the  Sunday  morning  afterwards  a  “personal”  was  put  into  the  New  York  I 
Herald  as  Edson  tells  us  :  “  Idalia,  G.  Monday  evening,  6  sharp  ;  very  important.”  He 

says  that  in  consequence  of  the  “personal,”  which  had  been  agreed  upon  by  him  and 
Connors  and  Dunlap  and  Scott,  he  met  Connors,  and  Connors  paid  over  to  him  some 
$1200  of  money  of  the  Northampton  Bank,  in  new  fives  and  in  precisely  the  same  bills 
which  Mr.  Warriner  testified  that  they  had  just  then,  for  the  first  time,  begun  the  issue. 
This  was  on  the  30th.  We  find  that  afterwards,  on  the  7th  day  of  February,  and  that 
was  Monday,  Edson  meets  Connors  and  inquires  of  him  with  regard  to  Scott  and  Dunlap, 
and  Connors  informs  him  that  Scott  and  Dunlap  have  gone  to  Northampton  after  the 
property.  We  find  that  on  the  very  next  day  there  is  placed  iu  the  Herald,  and  Edsou 
says  that  he  then  admonished  Connors  that  Northampton  is  on  the  alert,  and  that  it  is 
not  safe  for  these  men  to  go  on  for  the  property.  Then  he  tells  us  that,  by  Connors’  re-* 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


67 


quest,  he  puts  another  “  personal  ’’into  the  Herald,  “  Knox,  come  home,”  and  that 
Connors  tells  him  that  Scott  will  understand  that,  because  “  Knox  ”  was  the  name  of 
a  horse  that  he  owned,  and  that  Connors  himself  goes  on  to  intercept  him.  We  find 
that  a  day  or  two  after  he  meets  Dunlap,  at  a  place  named,  and  inquires  of  him 
whether  Scott  has  returned,  and  he  learns  that  he  has  not.  The  succeeding  day  he 
meets  Scott,  and  Scott  informs  him  that  he  went  to  Springfield  and  returned  without 
going  to  Northampton,  and  that  they  did  not  return  (a  fact  a  little  extraordinary  if 
untrue,  and  fabricated  by  Edson)  in  consequence  of  the  advertisement,  and  that  they 
had  not  seen  Connors.  On  Friday  he  informs  us  that  he  met  Scott,  who  explained 
to  him  why  he  returned.  We  find  that  after  that,  on  a  certain  day  and  place  named, 
he  is  informed  that  the  property  is  returned,  and  of  the  exact  day  it  was  brought 
back.  On  Sunday  the  13th,  it  was  arranged  between  the  parties  that  Edson  should 
confer  with  the  bank  officers  and  endeavor  to  negotiate  profitable  terms  for  the  re¬ 
turn  of  the  property.  On  Feb.  18th  he  informs  Scott  and  Dunlap  of  the  result  of  the 
negotiations,  and  urges  them  to  close  the  arrangement  at  once.  They  then  apprise 
him  that  they  have  now  got  the  property  into  their  own  possession  and  should  ne¬ 
gotiate  the  business  in  their  own  and  usual  way,  and  intimated  to  him  that  they  can 
dispense  with  his  further  services  in  the  matter.  He  does  not  meet  them  again  until 
the  following  September.  He  demands  explanation — is  denounced  as  having 
sold  out  the  whole  party,  which  he  denies,  and  is  told  that  they  do  not  propose  to 
pay  him  a  “  damned  cent.”  The  witness  then  describes  subsequent  interviews,  giving 
particulars  of  dates,  places  and  parties.  Now,  gentlemen,  I  confidently  submit  that 
Edson  could  not  have  recited  to  you  such  a  multiplicity  of  facts,  stated  so  circum¬ 
stantially,  covering  so  much  space,  and  time,  involving  so  many  details,  and  reckless¬ 
ly  exposing  himself  to  contradictions,  upon  any  other  hypothesis  than  that  he  was 
master  of  his  facts  and  knew  that  his  story  was  true.  The  story  bears  unmistakably 
the  internal  evidence  of  verity.  Isn’t  it  so? 

But  I  have  thus  far,  Mr.  Foreman,  only  referred  to  the  story  itself  as  bearing  in¬ 
trinsic  marks  of  truth.  Now  is  introduced  the  other  questions  whether  or  not  Edson 
is  corroborated  and  confirmed  in  important  particulars  in  this  amazing  story.  Per¬ 
haps  the  first  question  you  would  ask,  is  this,  however.  What  motive  has  Edson 
and  what  motive  has  he  had,  at  any  time,  in  telling  anything  but  the  whole  truth  in 
the  case?  We  say  that  he  could  have  had  no  other  motive.  That  was  his  only 
safety.  The  only  ground  he  could  stand  upon,  or  tread  upon  securely,  was  that  when 
he  confessed  anything  he  should  confess  the  whole  and  the  exact  truth.  In  the 
famous  case  that  has  been  referred  to  already,  of  the  Commonwealth  against  Knapp, 
Mr.  Webster  remarked  : — 

“  In  our  practice,  the  moment  an  accomplice  is  permitted  by  the  Attorney  General 
to  make  a  disclosure,  he  is  safe;  he  is  beyond  hope  or  fear;  his  security  is  as  com¬ 
plete  as  if  he  had  received  a  pardon.  The  only  thing  which  can  bring  him  into 
jeopardy  is  a  departure  from  the  truth.” 

Now,  gentlemen,  in  this  case  it  has  been  suggested  that  Mr.  Edson  is  a  bright  and 
intellectual  man.  His  mind  is  a  “polished  column,”  my  brother  tells  us.  He  is  a 
man  of  clean,  clear,  acute  insight  and  apprehension,  he  is  a  man  who  knows  what  he 
is  about,  and  he  knew  that  the  only  safe  thing  for  him  to  do  was  to  tell  the  truth.  If 
he  received  any  promise  of  pardon,  any  promise  of  relief,  any  promise  of  security,  it 
was  based  upon  the  condition  of  telling  the  whole  truth.  What  possible  motive  could 
he  have  to  lie?  My  brother  suggested,  you  know,  in  his  opening  that  they  expected 
to  show  that  he  told  the  truth  in  the  main,  but  that  he  substituted  other  parties  for 
Dunlap  and  Scott.  What  object  was  there  for  that?  What  was  he  to  gain  by  leaving  out 
the  parties  to  the  fraud,  when  he  must  have  known  with  this  vigilant  detective  force,  all 
about  him,  that  his  falsehood  must,  at  once,  be  revealed  and  he  himself  arrested  ?  Not 
at  all.  Would  he  select  two  such  men  as  Scott  and  Dunlap,  as  the  subjects  he  was  to 
palm  oft'  upon  the  Northampton  bank,  as  the  perpetrators  of  this  crime.  Why,  gen- 
men,  with  these  men,  with  their  bevy  of  confederates  about  them,  his  life  would  not 
have  lasted  an  hour,  and  he  knew  it,  and  he  knew  that  the  only  way  for  him  to  acquire 
any  power  over  these  men,  the  only  way  in  which  he  was  safe,  was  to  demonstrate  to 
them  and  their  co-conspirators  by  his  testimony  that  they  were  in  his  power,  to  show 
that  Scott  was  in  his  power,  that  Dunlap  was  in  his  power,  and  that  Connors  was  in 
his  power.  His  life  would  not  have  been  worth  a  farthing.  How  long  would 


68 


TBIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


his  life  have  weighed  in  the  balance  against  these  men,  and  how  much  ?  Not  so  much 
as  the  weight  of  the  feather  of  a  humming-bird’s  wing.  No,  he  adopted  the  only  wise 
and  safe  course,  the  only  possible  course  that  was  left  open  to  him,  to  open  his 
bosom  and  make  a  clean  and  complete  revelation;  and  therefore  it  was  that  he  went 
to  that  stand  and  challenged  investigation  and  invited  scrutiny  ;  and  except  upon  that 
theory  you  don’t  believe  that  he  could  have  dared  to  open  his  mouth,  or  certainly  not 
to  have  invited  and  challenged  scrutiny.  Therefore,  I  say  to  you,  that  the  testimony 
of  Edson,  alone,  of  itself,  without  any  corroboration  or  confirmation  from  any  party, 
or  from  any  source,  bears  upon  itself  the  image  and  the  superscription  of  the  truth. 
But,  gentlemen,  we  go  a  great  deal  further.  We  say  that  he  is  confirmed  and  corrob¬ 
orated  in  a  great  variety  of  important  particulars.  In  the  first  place  we  say  that  he  is 
corroborated  by  what  happened  at  Wilkesbarre.  Edson  says  that  when  at  Northamp¬ 
ton  he  sent  a  telegram  to  Dunlap  under  the  name  of  R.  C.  Hill.  We  have  exhibited 
it.  You  remember  what  that  telegram  was,  and  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  refer  to 
it.  We  show  to  you  that  the  telegram  which  he  sent  from  Northampton  to  Wilkes¬ 
barre,  was  received  by  somebody.  We  find  by  going  to  Wilkesbarre  and  examining 
the  hotel  register,  that  the  name  of  Edson  and  R.  C.  Hill  are  recorded.  By  compari¬ 
son  of  these  signatures  with  Dunlap’s  handwriting,  we  find  that  R.  C.  Hill,  both  on 
the  register  and  on  the  pass-book  of  the  telegraph  company,  were  written  by  Dun¬ 
lap.  We- have  exhibited  the  telegram  he  sent  by  previous  arrangement  to  Edson,  un- 
son,  under  the  assumed  name  of  Edwards,  and  that  also  in  his  handwriting,  containing 
the  words,  “  come  to-morrow.”  The  comparison  of  the  handwriting  is  conclusive, 
and  it  requires  r.o  expert  to  show  you  that  Edson’s  right  hand  wrote  his  name  on  the 
hotel  register,  acknowledged  the  receipt  of  Edson’s  telegraph,  and  wrote  a  telegram 
in  reply.  In  this  history  at  Wilkesbarre,  we  have  a  most  striking  and  significant  cor¬ 
roboration  of  Edson’s  story. 

There  is  another  important  corroboration  to  which  I  have  already  alluded.  I  refer 
to  the  occasion  vfrhen,  after  being  informed  by  Connors  that  Scott  was  on  his  way  to 
Northampton,  for  the  property,  and  that  Connors,  upon  being  informed  that  the  en¬ 
terprise  was  unsafe,  himself  offered  to  go  to  Springfield,  and  that  he  set  out  for  that 
place  in  order  to  warn  Scott  that  it  was  unsafe  to  seize  upon  the  spoils  at  that  time. 
And  we  found  from  the  testimony  of  Sexton,  that  at  the  time  when  Edson  says  that  he 
sent  Connors  to  Springfield,  Scott  himself  was  there,  on  that  very  occasion  with  a 
team  such  as  Connors  described.  That  after  Scott  had  departed,  a  man  whom  you 
can  have  no  doubt  was  Connors,  came  to  Sexton  and  inquired  of  him  for  these  two 
men.  And  then,  that  upon  inquiring  of  Scott  ofter  he  returned,  whether  he  saw  Con¬ 
nors  there,  Scott  told  him  that  he  did  not  see  him,  and  that  he  came  away  not  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  the  notice  Connors  gave  him,  or  the  “  personal  ”  in  the  Herald,  but  that 
he  came  away  from  other  causes,  which  Ishall  explain  to  you  by  and  by.  Again,  we 
say,  he  is  confirmed  in  this. 

He  testifies  he  was  in  Syracuse  on  the  third  day  of  July,  and  at  that  time  he  made 
a  craft  of  the  Third  National  Bank  of  Syracuse,  and  that  he  gave  that  draft  to  Dun¬ 
lap.  Is  he  confirmed  in  that,  Mr.  Foreman  and  gentlemen?  We  have  called  the 
president  of  the  bank,  and  he  says  that  on  the  third  day  of  J uly,  Edson  was  there.  He 
says  that  he  was  around  the  bank  for  five  or  six  hours  We  showed  him  the  diagram 
which  Edson  says  he  gave  to  Dunlap  as  being  the  diagram  whieh  was  a  descrip¬ 
tion  of  the  bank,  and  he  identifies  it  as  an  accurate  description  of  the  bank.  In  this 
we  go  further,  and  this  document  which  Edson  says  he  gave  to  Dunlap,  we 
find  in  Dunlap’s  trunk,  under  Dunlap’s  lock  and  key.  How  do  you  account 
for  that?  No  confirmation?  My  Brother  Leonard  yesterday,  with  a  degree 
of  plausibility  that  had  a  vast  deal  of  fancy  and  a  slight  basis  of  fact  in  it, 
endeavored  to  explain  to  you  that  fatal  piece  of  testimony  about  the  trunk  ;  that 
trunk  he  claimed  had  been  broken  open  before  that  document  was  taken  from  it. 
Not  at  all.  When  was  that  trunk  broken  open  ?  My  Brother  Leonard  has  intimated 
that  Mr.  Pinkerton  had  no  key  to  that  trunk  until  Dunlap  gave  him  the  key,  and  that 
he  did  not  examine  the  trunk  until  these  suspicious  articles  had  been  placed  in  it  by 
his  connivance.  Not  at  all,  not  a  bit  of  it.  Mr.  Pinkerton  swears  that  Dunlap  and 
Scott  were  arrested  in  Philadelphia,  with  their  burglar  tools,  on  the  13th  day  of  Feb¬ 
ruary,  and  that  by  telegraph  he  heard  of  it,  and  on  that  same  day  he  went  to  the 
Grand  Central  Hotel  and  broke  open  the  trunk  himself,  in  the  presence  of  the  pro- 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANS  ROBBERS. 


69 


prietor  of  the  hotel,  and  of  the  porter,  and  then  he  took  away  from  that  trunk  the  dia¬ 
gram.  Afterwards,  he  says  he  took  certain  other  articles,  and  left  it  then  in  the  care 
of  the  proprietor  of  the  hotel,  and  afterwards,  he  says  Dunlap  sent  down,  as  he  states, 
and  tried  to  get  away  these  evidences  of  his  guilt,  and  the  proprietor  of  the  hotel 
would  not  give  them  up,  and  Dunlap  tells  Pinkerton  that  the  proprietor  of  the  hotel 
would  not  surrender  them,  and  asks  him  to  go  and  get  them,  and  then  he  goes  and 
examines  the  trunk.  Then  it  was  he  took  away  the  photographs  of  Connors  and  Mrs. 
Scott,  and  that  piece  of  wax,  precisely  the  same  sort  of  a  thing  that  Scott  gave  Edson 
in  order  to  make  his  quiet  impression  of  the  keys  of  Mr.  Whittelsey’s  bank.  That  is  the 
story.  It  has  been  intimated  to  you  that  these  detectives  are  not  men  that  you  can  trust. 
Gentlemen,  the  house  of  Pinkerton  is  no  stranger  in  this  country.  You  have  heard  of  it 
over  and  over  again,  that  when  the  commercial  and  the  municipal  detectives  failed 
and  were  foiled,  these  honest  men  were  resorted  to.  An  old  house,  which  has  been  in 
operation  some  forty  years,  founded  by  that  man’s  father,  an  honest  Scotchman,  who 
carries  on  the  business  to-day.  Do  you  remember  the  Mollie  Maguire  outrages  in 
the  coal  fields?  Ask  the  honest  citizens  of  Schuylkill,  who  had  been  shadowed  for 
years  by  murderers,  and  who  lifted  up  their  hands  with  benedictions  on  the  Pinker¬ 
tons,  because  at  last  they  had  brought  the  miscreants  to  light,  and  that,  too,  through 
the  aid  of  an  accomplice.  And  from  that  time  to  this,  through  their  instrumentality 
largely,  quiet  and  order  has  reigned  there  as  before.  These  insinuations  and  asper¬ 
sions  are  most  unjust,  and  it  is  not  safe  to  suggest  to  a  jury  that  Mr.  Pinkerton  was 
a  party  to  a  false  and  fraudulent  placing  of  this  piece  of  testimony  in  Dunlap’s  trunk. 

I  say,  therefore,  that  Edson  is  confirmed  and  corroborated  most  conclusively  by  the 
testimony  growing  out  of  the  diagram  of  the  bank  in  Syracuse. 

Again,  there  is  another  piece  of  testimony  by  which  he  is  confirmed.  It  appears  by 
the  testimony  that  here  was  a  conspiracy  in  which  Connors  and  Dunlap  and  Edson 
and  Scott  were  the  parties.  Connors,  according  to  Edson’s  story,  was  designated  as 
the  man  who  should  negotiate  the  securities,  and  Edson  tells  you  that  Connors  did 
not  come  to  Northampton ;  the  others  did,  and  Connors  was  to  stay  behind  and  ne¬ 
gotiate  the  plunder.  Edson  says  that  after  that,  along  in  the  fall,  he  tried  to  make 
arrangements  by  which  these  securities  should  be  negotiated  and  placed  again  in  the 
hands  of  the  bank,  by  means  of  the  bank  paying  a  certain  sum  for  them,  and  that  he 
had  an  interview  with  Scott  and  Dunlap,  and  Leary  was  present  on  that  occasion. 

Here  let  us  diverge  a  moment  and  allude  to  another  fact,  which  I  might  mention 
as  among  the  reasons  or  motives  that  actuated  Edson  in  what  he  did.  We  find,  ac¬ 
cording  to  Edson’s  story,  that  early  after  the  loss  of  the  property  by  the  bank,  he  had 
an  interview  with  Mr  Williams,  and  the  defendants  confirm  the  fact,  and  that  from 
that  time  he  endeavored  to  have  the  securities  negotiated  back  to  the  bank  before 
they  should  be  removed  from  Northampton.  That  was  his  object  and  interest,  be¬ 
cause  you  can  see  that  if  he  could  arrange  to  negotiate  the  securities  with  the  direct¬ 
ors  of  the  bank  at  Northampton  before  they  left  Northampton,  and  a  certain  sum  of 
money  should  be  arranged  for,  he  would  know  precisely  how  much  the  sum  was,  and 
thus  he  would  be  sure  to  have  his  fair  share  of  the  plunder,  and  then  he  would  not  be 
defrauded  as  he  was  in  the  Quincy  affair.  And  that  is  just  the  reason  why  Scott  and 
Dunlap  would  not  negotiate  them,  and  that  is  the  reason  why  they  insisted  upon 
the  securities  being  brought  from  Northampton,  in  order  that  they  could  “  beat  ” 
Edson  in  the  matter,  just  as  he  was  beaten  in  the  Quincy  matter.  Edson  knew 
that  these  men  had  gone  on  to  Northampton,  and  he  kne  w  that  their  purpose  was 
to  bring  back  the  securities,  and  he  was  determined  to  stop  it,  and  sent  Connors 
on.  He  put  in  his  notice  of  Idalia;”  and  the  question  will  perhaps  arise  whether  or 
not  he  was  not  the  means  of  sending  on  to  Springfield  or  Northampton,  the  materials 
out  of  which  the  notice  should  be  made,  which  appeared  in  the  Springfield  Union 
under  date  of  Feb.  7th,  1876,  viz:  “Telegrams  state  that  the  securities  are  buried 
somewhere  in  the  town  of  Northampton,  and  that  the  burglars  were  coming  for 
them.”  I  say,  you  can  see  that  Edson  had  a  motive  in  all  this  matter,  and  you  can  see 
perhaps  another  motive  that  is  disclosed.  We  find  that  he  tries  to  arrange  for  the 
negotiation  of  the  securities.  He  finds  that  he  cannot  do  it.  They  thwart  his  efforts, 
and  conclude  by  finally  telling  him  he  shall  not  have  a  “  damned  cent,”  and  is  sold 
out;  and  then  it  is,  and  not  till  they  thus  betrayed  him,  that  he  takes  the  matter  into 
his  own  hands,  and  at  last  makes  a  full  disclosure.  And  now,  gentlemen,  let  us  recur 


70 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


again  to  the  matters  of  corroboration  growing  out  of  that  fact.  I  say,  it  was  under¬ 
stood  between  Connors,  Dunlap,  Edson  and  Scott,  that  Connors  was  to  be  the  nego¬ 
tiator.  According  to  Edson's  story,  they  had  a  conference  together,  and  it  was  ar¬ 
ranged  between  them  that  Edson  should  be  the  medium  by  which  communication 
should  be  made  between  the  Northampton  Bank  and  the  burglars,  through  their 
special  negotiator,  Connors.  And  what  does  he  do?  Edson  says,  that  immediately 
after  that  was  agreed  upon  and  arranged  for,  he  telegraphed  to  Mr.  Williams  to  come 
on  to  New  York,  and  in  pursuance  of  the  arrangement  made  tor  that  purpose:  that 
Williams  came  to  New  York,  and  that  he  agreed  with  him  that  he  should  have  an 
interview  with  Connors.  Mr.  Williams  corroborates  him  entirely.  Hecomestothe 
stand  and  swears  that  in  accordance  with  the  arrangement  made  between  him  and 
Edson,  he  went  to  Connors’  place,  had  an  interview  with  him  there  of  two  or  three 
hours,  in  a  vain  endeavor  to  get  back  the  securities,  and  that  afterwards  Connors 
met  him  at  the  Windsor  Hotel,  and  that  after  that  he  and  Connors  conferred  together 
for  an  hour  in  Central  Park.  Is  that  no  confirmation  of  Edson?  Is  there  any  ex¬ 
planation  other  than  in  the  entire  truth  of  Edson’s  version  of  the  facts,  and  that 
Connors  and  Williams  had  that  interview  in  consequence  of  and  in  pursuance  of  the 
arrangement  claimed  by  Edson  to  have  been  made  between  him  and  Connors  and 
the  defendants ?  I  submitted,  a  few  moments  since,  that  the  testimony  of  Edson, 
from  its  palpable,  intrinsic  truth,  from  its  internal  evidence,  was  such  as  to  entitle  it 
to  your  credence.  Now  I  ask  you  if,  taking  that  evidence,  reinforced  as  it  is  by  these 
corroborative  facts  and  circumstances,  not  one  of  which  can  it  be  pretended  that  Ed-  i 
son  created,  the  conclusion  is  not  irresistible,  and  does  not  the  testimony"  seize  upon 
and  grapple  the  defendants  inextricably  ? 

Now,  gentlemen,  we  come  to  another  class  of  testimony  which  is  independent  of 
Edson,  and  at  the  same  time  corroborative  of  his  history  of  the  case.  And  I  refer 
now  to  the  chapter  of  events  which  occurred  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Whittelsey.  It 
seems  that  on  the  26th  of  January,  1876,  while  Mr.  Whittelsey  and  his  family,  shield¬ 
ed  by  the  law,  as  they  supposed,  were  asleep  beneath  their  own  roof,  their  house  was 
entered  by’  five  men.  The  outer  key  was  turned  by  these  nippers.  Having  once 
entered  the  house,  they  silently  passed  up  the  front  stairway,  and  with  huge  sledge 
hammers  broke  down  the  doors  and  entered  the  sleeping  rooms  of  the  inmates.  We 
say  that  two  of  the  parties  engaged  in  that  enterprise  were  Scott  and  Dunlap.  We 
don’t  assume  to  identify  any  of  the  others,  but  we  do  identify  those  as  being  the  lead¬ 
ers  and  the  chief  actors  in  that  brutal  midnight  drama.  We  prove  it  by  Mr.  Whit¬ 
telsey,  by  Mrs.  Whittelsey,  by  Mrs.  Page,  three  witnesses  of  large  intelligence  and 
high  character.  They  swear,  according  to  their  best  knowledge  and  belief,  these  are 
the  men,  and  they  are  confident  in  their  knowledge  and  belief.  Mr.  Whittelsey  testi¬ 
fies  with  confidence.  He  recognizes  Scott  chiefly  by  his  voice.  He  states  how  much 
conversation  he  had  with  him,  and  how  frequently  he  heard  his  voice  during  those 
long  four  hours,  and  his  opportunities  for  accurate  observation.  He  was  at  special 
painstaking  in  listening  to  what  was  said,  and  in  scrutinizing  what  was  done,  and  even 
their  manner  and  bearing  were  marked  with  special  reference  to  identification  there¬ 
after,  and  noticed  the  peculiar  shrug  of  the  shoulders  wrhich  we  have  proved  was  charac- 
acteristic  of  his  bodily  motions.  Mrs.  Page  testifies  that  she  identifies  them  by  the  voice 
and  bearing  and  from  a  variety  of  characteristic  facts.  She  says  :  “I  thought,  at  the  time, 
if  I  should  ever  meet  them  again  I  should  know  them. ”  She  has  now  met  them  and  does 
know  them.  Mrs.  Whittelsey  as  positively’  and  for  like  reasons  recognizes  them. 
They  all  have  no  hesitation  in  declaring  to  you  that  these  are  the  men.  My  Brother 
Leonard  scouts  the  theory  that  the  voice  furnishes  any’  adequate  test  of  identity,  and 
asks  how  many  would  recognize  the  tones  of  his  voice  it  they  should  hear  it  to-mor¬ 
row  ?  Very  true.  The  breath  of  human  eloquence  passes  away  from  the  public 
assembly  and  leaves  no  trace.  That  is  not  this  case.  You  are  to  take  the  circum¬ 
stances  in  which  these  persons  were  placed.  Here  I  refer  to  the  suggestions  I  sub¬ 
mitted  in  a  lormer  investigation  of  these  facts,  as  reasons  why  these  persons  should 
remember.  Iheir  faculties  were  edged  and  sharpened  by  the  excitement  of  the  hour, 
so  that  they  are  able  to  remember  and  recall  precisely  the  tones  of  the  voice.  Here 
they  were  in  their  own  home,  with  five  masked  burglars  surrounding  them,  conscious 
that  their  purpose  was  the  commission  of  a  great  felony,  part  of  the  time  bound  hand 
and  foot,  part  of  the  time  sitting  side  by  side  with  these  men,  marking  every  tone 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANE  ROBBERS. 


71 


and  movement,  their  minds  were  excited,  their  minds  were  on  the  alert,  their 
minds  were  quite  like  the  plate  in  the  camera-obscura  which  when  it  is  ready  to  re¬ 
ceive  the  impression  and  the  image  falls  upon  it,  receives  it  in  an  instant  and  it  is 
made  indelible ;  and  is  the  human  eye  a  clumsier  invention  than  human  contrivan¬ 
ces?  They  say  they  remember  the  tones  of  the  voice.  So  Mr.  Whittelsey  says,  so 
Mrs.  Page  says.  And  that  is  one  of  the  methods  in  which  the  mind  takes  in  impres¬ 
sions,  and  these  are  made  instruments  of  proof  in  legal  investigations.  In  the  case 
of  Halligan  and  Dailey,  who  were  executed  in  Hampshire  county,  the  voice  was  the 
mode  of  identification.  Why,  even  the  old  patriarch  Isaac  was  deceived  in  his 
sense  of  touch,  but  he  recognized  the  voice  of  Jacob.  So  it  is  in  many  and  many  a 
case  cited  from  the  books. 

(Here  Mr.  Gillett  referred  to  instances  recorded  in  the  State  trials  of  England, 
which  he  cited  in  his  former  argument.) 

Do  we  not  all  know,  Mr.  Foreman,  that  our  senses  are  quickened  and  intensified 
under  strong  excitement  ?  It  applies  even  to  our  grosser  faculties.  That  mother 
who  lifted  with  ease  the  timber  which  imprisoned  the  body  of  her  child,  but  which 
required  two  strong  men  to  replace,  illustrates  the  theory.  But  my  Brother  Leon¬ 
ard  says  Mrs.  Page  says  she  was  never  more  composed  in  her  life  ;  never  more  cool  ! 
Cool  !  Cool  as  the  engine  is  cool  when  under  pressure  it  is  ready  to  do  its  work. 
Cool  as  Napoleon  was  cool  when,  sitting  in  his  saddle  in  the  midst  of  the  smoke  and 
thunder  of  the  fight,  he  could  maneuver  forty  thousand  troops,  ranged  over  miles  of 
territory,  so  that  he  could  summon  division  after  division,  column  after  column,  and 
concentrate  them  at  a  single  point  at  the  same  instant,  and  thus  perform,  as  he  said, 
mathematical  problems  by  intuition,  which,  in  the  quiet  of  his  tent,  would  have  re¬ 
quired  hours  of  calculation.  It  is  such  a  coolness  and  composure  that  these  men  and 
women  had  on  that  fearful  night,  and  the  impressions  were  seared  upon  their  eye¬ 
balls,  and  they  retain  them  at  this  hour.  And  when  they  stood  there  and  confronted 
these  men,  it  was  with  absolute  confidence  that  they  exclaimed,  These  are  the  men  ! 

But,  gentlemen,  we  don’t  rest  here.  This  striking  testimony,  so  confirmatory  of 
Edson,  is  itself  corroborative.  Is  there  other  evidence  tending  to  show  that  these 
defendants  had  been  in  Northampton  about  that  time  5  My  Brother  Leonard  made 
himself  merry,  somewhat,  over  Mr.  Crafts’  testimony.  All  that  Mr.  Crafts  testified 
to — I  suppose  he  is  a  respectable  citizen  of  this  town — and  he  informs  that  on  an 
occasion,  two  or  three  days  before  the  robbery,  he  saw  a  man  near  Mr.  Whittelsey's 
house,  looking  intently  toward  it.  That  he  had  Connors  with  him  ;  that  he  asked 
him  if  that  was  Mr.  Whittelsey’s  house.  Brother  Leonard  seems  to  think  that  was 
very  strange.  Not  at  all.  The  man  was  probably  looking  at  the  house  with  an  in¬ 
tenseness  that  required  an  explanation,  and  so,  in  order  to  carelessly  relieve  sus¬ 
picion,  he  did  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world,  he  asked  where  Mr.  Whittelsey 
lived,  and  if  he  did  not  do  that  Mr.  Crafts  gives  a  further  clue  to  the  conversation, 
when  he  said  in  reply  to  something  Scott  asked  him,  he  informed  Scott  that  there 
was  another  family  in  the  house.  This  was  important  information  to  Scott.  But 
Mr.  Crafts  does  not  say,  I  saw  a  man  there,  and  I  recognize  him  to-day,  but  he  testi¬ 
fies  that  after,  on  the  Saturday  before  the  burglary,  he  was  standing  in  a  grocery 
store  in  this  town,  and  that  then  and  there  he  saw  the  same  man,  and  the  mental  pro¬ 
cess  passed  through  his  mind  that  this  is  the  same  man  that  I  met  upon  the  street  the 
other  day  in  front  of  Mr.  Whittelsey’s  house;  and  then  he  goes  upon  the  stand  and 
says  to  the  best  of  his  belief  that  Scott  is  the  man.  Then  there  is  the  similar  testi¬ 
mony  of  Mr.  Mantor,  applying  to  two  occasions,  and  it  is  of  the  same  sort,  confirma¬ 
tory  entirely.  So  much  for  Northampton.  But,  gentlemen,  there  is  no  testimony  in 
this  vicinity  that  clusters  about  these  defendants  so  clearly,  and  with  such  connecting 
power,  as  the  occurrences  at  Springfield.  We  find  that  on  Monday  morning  before 
the  robbery,  a  well-known  citizen  of  Springfield  saw  these  men.  Mr.  Holt  tells  you 
that  he  went  to  his  office  in  the  morning  about  eight  o’clock,  and  he  saw  these  two 
men  as  they  crossed  the  street  opposite  to  him.  He  saw  them  go  down  to  the  depot  ; 
afterwards  he  saw  them  on  a  side  street,  which  my  Brother  Leonard  talks  about  as 
being  a  wholesale  street  of  business.  Possibly  a  wholesale  liquor-dealers’  street;  a 
place  eminently  fit  for  burglars  and  thieves  to  congregate  upon,  and  there  he  sees 
two  men  meet  three  other  men  coming  from  an  opposite  direction,  and  they  have  a 
conference  together.  Then,  afterwards,  he  says  he  saw  them  again  that  day,  and  saw 


72 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


the  five  men  meet  again  and  confer  together.  He  saw  them  the  next  day,  both  sepa¬ 
rate  and  grouped,  and  called  the  attention  of  another  to  them.  Now,  gentlemen,  the 
question  was  asked  of  him  whether  or  not  these  were  the  men,  and  he  said  that  he 
was  positive  about  it,  and  that  he  had  no  doubt  that  Scott  and  Conners  were  the 

persons.  • 

My  Brother  Leonard  made  a  remark  with  reference  to  Mr.  Holt,  which  I  do  not 
think  he  would  make  in  his  presence  or  the  presence  of  his  friends,  indicating  that 
he  should  think  Mr.  Holt  was  just  such  a  man  as  would  see  them,  and  as  he  should 
expect  to  see  them  and  identify  them.  If  he  said  it  ironically,  and  sarcastically,  as 
his  tones  indicated,  then  he  conveyed  a  wrong  impression  ol  Mr.  Holt;  for  of  all 
men  in  the  city  of  Springfield  who  would  accurately  and  infallibly  observe  and  mark 
such  men  it  would  be  Mr.  Holt.  His  high  character  is  unquestioned.  He  is  a  man 
who  has  been  recognized  in  the  city  government  ot  Springfield  over  and  over  again, 
in  positions  of  trust,  and  more  than  that,  according  to  his  own  testimony,  has  been 
for  eighteen  years  paymaster  of  the  Boston  and  Albany  railroad,  paying  out  thirty  or 
forty  thousand  dollars  a  month.  Having  had  this  business  on  his  hands  for  years,  he 
would  naturally  sharpen  his  eyesight  and  faculty  ot  observation,  so  that  he  could 
know  his  men,  that  when  employes  came  in  for  their  pay  he  should  remember 
whether  they  are  men  who  have  been  there  before,  or  whether  they  are  attempting  to 
palm  themselves  off  for  employes,  a  trick  formerly  not  unfrequent.  Then  the  fact 
of  his  carrying  large  sums  of  money  from  one  point  to  another,  has  sharpened  his 
senses,  and  when  he  saw  these  suspicious  persons,  he  stamped  them,  he  branded  them, 
and  he  remembered  them,  and  had  pitched  upon  them  when  he  first  saw  them  in  a 
crowd,  and  he  knows  that  these  are  the  men,  and  so  swears  to  you.  Were  they  the 
robbers?  They  were  at  Springfield,  and  you  will  infer,  of  course,  that  they  would 
not  come  into  this  town,  which  was  to  be  the  scene  ot  their  plunder  only  the  next 
day.  They  would  not  come.  They  would  naturally  feel  comparative  safety  in  a  city 
against  which  they  had  no  evil  designs,  and  would  be  careless  of  exposure,  and  the 
fact  that  they  were  there  two  days  is  explained  by  Edson,  when  he  says  that  Dunlap 
told  him  on  Sunday  that  they  intended  to  make  the  charge  on  the  bank  the  next 
night  It  seems  that  for  some  reason  they  were  detained  in  Springfield  a  day  longer 
than  they  intended.  But  this  is  not  all.  There  are  certain  other  marks  of  identity, 
which  have  been  introduced  into  the  case.  We  find  at  the  house  ol  Mr.  Whittelsey  a 
piece  of  wrapping  paper  bearing  the  name  of  Hall  &  Prew  as  clothing  dealers  in 
Springfield.  Mr.  Hall  is  called  upon  the  stand  and  identifies  a  pair  of  drawers  as 
being  such  drawers  as  he  sold  in  Springfield,  a  day  or  two  before  the  robbery,  and 
although  he  cannot  identify  these  men  as  the  men,  he  remembers  that  somewhere  and 
at  some  time,  he  has  seen  them.  And  then  we  find  in  Mr.  Whittelsey’s  house,  this 
garment,  and  we  find  it  fitting  like  that,  and  we  find  from  the  testimony  of  these  that 
a  portion  of  this  garment  was  worn  as  a  mask,  in  Mr.  Whittelsey’s  house,  that  night. 
So  we  have  all  these  facts  of  corroboration.  And,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  in  addition 
to  all  this,  we  have  introduced  another  piece  of  testimony  which  seems  to  me  espec¬ 
ially  significant  and  worthy  of  your  consideration,  and  that  is  certain  letters.  We 
introduced  to  you  a  receipt,  which  is  confessedly  in  the  handwriting  of  Scott.  Then 
we  introduce  to  you  a  gentleman  from  New  York,  of  A.  A.  Low  &  Co.,  and  if  you 
know  anything  of  these  gentlemen,  you  know  that  for  wealth  and  magnitude  of  bus¬ 
iness,  and  respectability  of  character,  there  is  no  superior  in  the  country,  in  this  de¬ 
partment.  Mr.  Lyman,  formerly  of  this  town,  and  lie  has  a  summer  residence  here 
now,  being  a  member  of  the  firm.  We  called  Mr.  Joseph  Paine,  an  expert.  And 
upon  the  pressure  of  counsel  upon  the  other  side,  and  if  anybody  knows  about  his 
own  capacity  I  suppose  he  does,  and  according  to  his  best  judgment  he  and  Mr.  South- 
worth  are  probably  the  only  competent  and  accomplished  professional  experts  in 
handwriting  in  this  country.  Now  he  has  compared  their  writings  and  he  has  passed 
his  judgment  upon  them,  and  he  gives  you  as  his  unqalified  conviction  under  oath, 
that  the  hand  which  wrote  the  receipt  wrote  these  letters  and  superscribed  these  let¬ 
ters,  and  when  you  look  at  their  contents  you  will  know,  that  whoever  wrote  these 
letters  are  the  buiglars  of  this  bank.  Perhaps  it  is  of  very  little  consequence,  but 
by  reading  them  you  will  find  that  if  Scott  wrote  those  letters,  any  one  of  them,  he 
was  making  precisely  the  same  complaint  to  the  bank  that  he  had  been  making  to 
Edson.  He  says  that  somebody  is  trying  to  negotiate  with  you  who  has  no  authority 


TRIAL  OR  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


73 


to  negotiate,  and  he  says  somebody  is  trying  to  negotiate  with  you  who  is  “standing 
at  both  ends.”  Do  you  recollect  that  ?  “Somebody  is  trying  to  negotiate  with  you 
who  is  standing  at  both  ends.”  Who  was  that  somebody  ?  Who  was  the  man  that 
was  writing  to  them  warning  them  not  to  negotiate  with  the  man  who  was  standing 
at  both  ends?  Edson  was  the  man,  as  appears  by  Mr.  Williams’  evidence,  who  was 
standing  at  the  bank  end,  and  Edson  was  the  man  that  the  writer  referred  to  when  he 
warned  them  that  it  .was  idle  for  them  to  endeavor  to  negotiate  with  any  other  party, 
and  if  they  wanted  to  negotiate  they  might  negotiate  with  the  writer,  and  to  prove 
his  genuineness,  he  enclosed  in  the  letter  two  of  the  stolen  certificates.  Mr.  Fore¬ 
man,  Scott  wrote  that  letter,  and  nobody  else  could  have  written  it.  So  much  for 
that  testimony. 

(At  this  point  the  court  took  a  recess  of  five  minutes,  after  which  Mr.  Gillett  re¬ 
sumed  his  argument.) 

Gentlemen,  I  have  at  a  great  deal  more  length  than  I  expected  to,  taxed  your  pa¬ 
tience  in  considering  the  testimony  claimed  by  the  Government  as  conclusive  of  the 
guilt  of  the  defendants.  Ve  say  that  this  testimony  is  not  to  be  judged  of  as  each 
piece  stands  alone  and  fragmentary.  It  is  not  that  unsupported  single  column,  such 
as  my  brother  alluded  to,  with  nothing  to  support  it  from  beneath,  and  nothing  to 
grapple  it  from  above,  and  nothing  to  lean  upon  on  either  side;  but  it  is  testimony 
reinforced  and  stabilitated  in  most  significant  and  manifold  ways.  Each  piece  is  sur¬ 
rounded  by  its  corroborative  and  confirming  facts.  And  you  are  not  to  take  each 
piece  by  itself.  Of  course  you  will  examine  the  entire  fabric  of  evidence.  You  will 
examine  it  as  you  test  the  strength  of  a  cable  which  holds  fast  the  ship  at  anchor. 
Take  it  strand  by  strand,  and  fibre  by  fibre,  and  you  can  snap  it  with  your  finger,  but 
braid  them  together  and  then  try  it!  And  I  ask  you  to  look  at  the  remarkable  com¬ 
bination  of  testimony,  in  order  that  you  may  get  the  full  force  and  effect  of  it.  Tak¬ 
ing  it  singly  and  standing  alone,  you  may  say  that  each  piece  of  itself  is  not  conclu¬ 
sive.  But  that  is  not  the  way  to  look  at  it.  You  might  just  as  well  analyze  a  single 
drop  of  water  in  this  glass,  in  order  to  discover  the  power  and  majesty  of  the  ocean, 
as  it  comes  breaking  in  thunders  upon  the  shore.  But  take  this  testimony  together, 
in  its  aggregation  and  accumulation,  and  I  submit  there  is  no  withstanding  its  force, 
and  that  all  the  testimony  which  has  been  introduced  on  the  part  of  the  defense  is  as 
tow  before  the  fire.  Now,  gentlemen,  let  us  inquire  what  has  been  the  theory  of  the 
defense?  Its  chief  aim  has  been  to  prove  an  alibi,  to  prove  that  these  parties  were 
not  there.  And,  of  course,  if  they  were  not  there,  and  you  are  satisfied  that  they  were 
not,  then  that  ends  the  government’s  case."  But,  I  suppose  there  is  nothing  more  un¬ 
satisfactory  than  the  testimony  which  is  denominated  an  alibi,  as  gotten  up  by  the  party 
of  the  defense  in  a  criminal  case.  Tonly  Weller  only  voiced  the  sentiment  which  has 
been  going  on  for  generations,  when  he  asked  of  his  hopeful  son,  after  the  trial  was 
over,  "  Oh,  Sammy,  Sammj ,  vy  worn’t  there  a  alliby  ?”  and  that,  too,  in  a  breach 
of  promise  case  !  Gentlemen,  that  is  the  easy  resort  of  persons  who  intend  to  manu¬ 
facture  a  defense.  My  Brother  Leonard  alluded  to  the  Webster  trial,  in  the  course 
of  his  argument.  They  had  five  intelligent  witnesses,  men  and  women,  who  swore  to 
seeing  Dr.  Parkman  in  full  health  and  moving  in  the  streets  of  Boston,  when  by  Prof. 
Webster’s  own  confession,  afterwards,  the  body  of  Dr.  Parkman  had  already  been  muti¬ 
lated  into  fragments,  and  at  that  very  hour  was  hanging  piecemeal  on  fish-hooks  in 
the  vault  of  the  Medical  College,  or  was  part  decaying  beneath  the  action  of  acids,  or 
consuming  in  the  fires  of  his  furnace.  No.  But  let  us  look  a  little  at  the  testimony 
upon  which  they  rely.  And,  in  the  first  place,  I  refer  to  the  testimony  of  Pstrokon- 
sky,  and  let  us  see  how  untrustworthy  that  testimony  is.  What  was  their  alibi? 
What  was  its  theory  ?  It  was  that  in  January  and  February  Scott  was  elsewhere,  and 
Dunlap  was  elsewhere,  and  Scott,  beyond  that,  Scott  was  lame;  that  he  had  sprained 
his  foot  early  in  January,  and  continued  lame  certainly  down  to  the  22d  of  March, 
when  he  was  receiving  instruction  from  the  Professor  who  was  so  fresh  from  his  clas¬ 
sics.  And  if  he  was  not  any  more  accurate  in  his  facts  than  he  was  in  his  classics,  I 
do  not  wonder  that  my  Brother  Leonard  smiled.  I  presume  because  he,  always  fresh 
from  the  classics,  discovered  that  the  erudite  professor  misquoted  the  Latin  and  mis¬ 
pronounced  the  English.  But  what  do  they  attempt  to  prove  by  these  persons? 
They  prove  that  he  was  absent  and  that  he  was  lame.  And  the  first  piece  of  testi¬ 
mony  that  they  introduce  here  is  from  this  music  teacher,  and  the  question  that  they 


74 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


ask  him  is  this.  Perhaps  it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  go  over  the  deposition,  but  they 
inquire  of  him  where  he  was  in  the  month  of  January,  in  reference  to  Mrs.  Scott’s  family, 
and  he  testified  that  during  the  month  of  January  he  gave  lessons  to  Mrs.  Scott  in  music 
every  Monday  and  every  Thursday.  Then,  upon  cross-examination,  he  was  inquired 
of  as  to  his  means  of  information,  how  he  happened  to  be  so  accurate,  and  he  referred 
to  his  memorandum  book  as  one  of  thespecial  sources  of  his  information.  You  will  re¬ 
member  that.  And  then,  gentlemen,  we  look  at  his  memorandum  book  and  we  find,  as 
you  will  find  upon  referring  to  it,  Mrs.  Scott’s  name  mentioned  in  a  sort  of  ledger  ac¬ 
count,  the  grouping  of  all  his  professional  visits.  And  you  will  observe  that  the  ac¬ 
count  commences  the  5th  day  of  January,  goes  on  to  July,  August,  September  and 
October,  but  December  and  January  are  nowhere  mentioned.  There  is  no  entry  and 
nothing  to  indicate  that  he  was  there,  in  a  single  instance,  in  the  month  of  January. 
There  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  he  was  at  Scott's  house  during  the  whole  time.  And 
he  further  adds,  that  he  took  dinner  there  uniformly,  when  he  gave  lessons,  and  that 
he  gave  his  lessons  at  twelve  o’clock,  and  yet,  according  to  the  German  girls  who 
were  servants  there,  they  dined  at  three  or  four  o’clock,  invariably.  So  far  as  that  I 
testimony  is  concerned,  we  say  it  is  worthless;  it  is  not  worth  so  much  as  a  whiff  of 
smoke  from  the  cigars  peddled  by  his  wife  from  her  cigar  stand.  And,  gentlemen, 
you  will  mark  that  this  testimony  was  taken  on  the  20th  of  last  June. 

You  will  find  also  that  the  deposition  of  Mrs.  Ballou  was  also  taken  this  last  June,  1 
and  you  will  find  that  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Raphael,  if  that  is  his  name,  was  taken 
last  June.  And  here  is  this  music  teacher,  who  was  there  twice  a  week,  as  he  testi¬ 
fied,  during  the  whole  of  January,  as  also  in  February,  and  Mrs.  Ballou,  who  had  the 
same  means  of  information  that  her  daughter  had,  and  Mr.  Raphael,  who  received  the 
rent,  and  not  a  single  question  is  asked  of  Mrs.  Ballou,  or  the  music  teacher,  or 
Raphael,  whether  they  noticed  that  Scott  was  lame.  That  question  of  lameness  had 
then  never  occurred  to  them  ;  it  was  an  after-thought  !  My  Brother  Leonard  tells  you 
that  here  is  an  alibi  which  is  very  imperfect,  but  very  true,  and  true  because  it  is  im¬ 
perfect  and  not  gotten  up  by  artifice — and  intimates  that  it  was  prepared  by  our  ex¬ 
cellent  Brother  Bond,  and  who  he  suspects  may  have  gone  down  to  New  York  for 
that  purpose,  and  how  refreshing  it  must  have  been  to  have  seen  these  ingenuous 
gentlemen  in  that  great  and  wicked  city  !  You  would  infer  that  the  appearance  of 
Brother  Bond  in  New  York  was  like  a  breath  of  fresh  air  from  our  mountains,  like 
the  murmur  of  a  country  brook.  Not  much,  Mr.  Foreman!  Besides,  they  had  noth¬ 
ing  to  do  with  the  fabrication  of  this  alibi.  We  discover  that  here  is  a  New  York 
lawyer,  More,  who  was  here  day  aftey  day  during  the  first  trial,  and  has  been  back 
and  forth  between  this  town  and  New  York  during  the  present  trial,  evidently  pre¬ 
paring  and  supervising  the  alibi.  Yet,  from  all  these  depositions  and  as  recently  as 
June  last,  not  a  word  or  syllable  about  Scott’s  lameness,  but  now  by  these  witnesses 
on  the  stand,  they  extend  this  lameness  from  the  2d  of  January  down  to  the  22d  of 
March,  when  with  the  gentle  professor  as  a  student.  And  the  professor’s  ingenious 
reply  was  very  significant.  “Did  you  notice  his  lameness  then  ?”  my  Brother  Bond 
inquires.  “Why,  yes,  because  Mr.  Scott  called  my  attention  to  it  by  asking  permis¬ 
sion  to  place  his  foot  upon  a  chair,  in  order  that  he  might  rest  it  from  his  lameness.” 
Undoubtedly  so  !  The  good  professor  thought  that  he  was  training  Scott  in  mathe¬ 
matics  and  the  languages,  and  the  fine  arts,  but  Scott  knew  that  he  was  training  the 
professor  for  a  witness !  There  is  the  story.  Now  Ido  not  propose  to  go  through 
with  the  various  issues  of  testimony  which  they  have  introduced,  because  it  is  all 
fresh  in  your  memory,  and  you  remember  the  witnesses  and  that  they  testified  both 
as  to  Scott’s  lameness,  all  the  witnesses  that  they  had,  all  the  witnesses  that  were 
trained  by  More  testify  as  to  the  lameness.  We  had  a  Miss  Amelia  Wood  on  the 
stand,  and  we  also  had  a  young  lady  by  the  name  of  Mary  or  Rosa  Ballou.  I  am 
glad  she  is  not  here  to  hear  me  mispronounce  her  name  ;  it  would  not  be  safe,  I  think 
you  will  imagine.  Now,  gentlemen,  I  agree  that  she  was  bright;  I  agree  that  she 
was  keen,  but  I  don’t  agree  that  she  was  truthful,  and  when  my  Brother  Leonard,  in 
his  argument  in  commenting  upon  that  witness,  alluded  to  her  in  connection  with 
your  own  daughters,  I  ask  you  if  you  were  not  mortified  and  ashamed.  Bright  she 
was,  ready  at  repartee,  and  when  I  asked  her  certain  questions  she  was  quick  with 
her  witty  retort,  and  when  yesterday  I  asked  her  in  regard  to  some  matter,  and  she 
gave  me  a  flippant  “none  of  your  business,”  and  when  I  inquired  what  she  said,  re- 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


75 


torted  she  did  not  choose  to  repeat.  I  agree  she  was  self-assured  and  of  ready  wit, 
but  where  did  she  get  it  ?  She  got  it  by  chaffering  with  men  !  This  woman  who  had 
been  going  around  in  one  place  a  month,  in  another  house  three  weeks,  in  another 
house  four  weeks,  keeping  house  for  a  man  three  weeks,  and  at  last  placed  in  the 
arms  of  the  mother-in-law  of  More,  and  stays  there  for  a  year,  paying  her  and  her 
mother’s  board,  when  her  house  rent  is  unpaid,  her  butchers’  bills  are  unpaid,  and 
her  grocer’s  bill  is  unpaid,  and  she  here  glittering  with  jewelry  and  bedizened  with 
elegant  apparel  !  Mr.  Foreman,  to  modify  Watts  a  little,  let  me  say  that  “The  paint¬ 
ed  courtezan  is  known  through  the  disguise  they  wear.” 

And  then  who  was  their  champion,  who  was  the  witness  who  was  their  champion 
man,  and  who  remembered  dates;  who  remembered  the  condition  of  his  face,  who 
remembered  whether  or  not  he  had  a  full  beard  or  a  moustache,  who  it  was  that  re¬ 
membered  about  his  lameness,  who  was  able  to  recollect  the  fact  because  he  was  in 
his  way  when  he  was  putting  a  new  string  in  the  piano?  They  called  a  man  by  the 
name  of  Decker,  who  by  his  own  confession  upon  the  stand,  is  a  cheat  and  a  swindl¬ 
er,  and  a  knave,  and  that,  too,  in  the  meanest  of  all  aspects.  Cheating  his  own  rela¬ 
tions,  and  a  perjurer  by  his  own  confession.  Swearing  here  upon  the  stand  that  in 
his  answer  in  the  courts  of  justice,  when  he  had  been  arraigned  for  fraud,  and  had 
sworn  to  facts,  was  inquired  of  whether  he  did  not  afterwards  confess  that  the  facts 
that  he  had  sworn  to  were  false,  said,  “  only  part  of  them.”  And  that  is  a  sample  of 
their  testimony.  That  shows  the  reservoir  from  which  they  draw,  and  which  gives  a 
complexion  to  all  this  testimony  about  an  alibi,  and  I  am  willing  to  leave  it  just 
there.  But,  gentlemen,  my  learned  Brother,  in  his  remarks,  suggested  to  us  that, 
the  case  of  the  government  was  more  remarkable  for  its  suppressions  than  for  what 
it  had  proved.  I  do  not  wonder  that  the  thought  occurred  to  my  excellent  friend, 
but  that  he  should  have  been  unwise  enough  to  suggest  it  to  you,  certainly  excited 
my  surprise.  They  need  never  have  had  Decker.  They  need  never  have  had  Miss 
Ballou  According  to  their  own  testimony  here  was  the  wife  of  Scott,  who  knew 
every  fact,  who  knew  all  about  the  case,  who  knew  where  he  was,  what  his 
business  was,  knew  not  only  where  he  was  on  the  26th  of  January,  but  who  knew 
where  he  was  on  the  7th  of  February,  and  where  he  was  during  all  these  times  of 
which  Edson  testifies  with  such  circumstantiality,  and  yet — there  she  sits  ! 

Mr.  Leonard — I  don’t  think,  your  Honor,  that  what  Mr.  Gillett  is  saying  is 
competent. 

Judge  Bacon — A  wife,  by  law,  is  a  competent  witness;  but  if  she  refuses  to  be  one, 
the  government  cannot  compel  her  to  be  one. 

Mr.  Leonard — That  matter  has  not  been  discussed,  vour  Honor. 

Mr.  Gillett — Then  I  propose  to  discuss  it. 

My  Brother  Leonard  opened  the  question.  It  has  been  opened  that  if  the  defend¬ 
ants  saw  fit,  they  could  go  upon  the  stand  and  testify,  and  my  Brother  Leonard  gave 
the  reasons  fully  to  the  jury  why  he  did  not  place  them  in  the  witness  box  to  testify 
in  their  own  behalf,  and  I  propose  to  reply  to  him.  The  whole  question  has  been 
opened  by  the  defense.  In  the  last  term  of  the  court  in  Hampden  County,  Chief 
Justice  Brigham  so  ruled.  There  is  nothing  that  the  defense  shall  allege  in  his  case 
that  the  government  cannot  reply  to  legitimately. 

Judge  Bacon — I  think  the  defense  gave  a  leason  why  they  did  not  call  the  defend¬ 
ants,  and  it  may  be  discussed. 

Mr.  Leonard — -The  reason  is  simply  a  personal  reason  entirely.  I  only  wish  to 
have  my  rights  here. 

Judge  Bacon — The  counsel  in  his  argument  discusses  the  reason  why  the  defend¬ 
ants  and  why  the  wife  of  one  of  the  defendants  is  not  called.  I  think  the  govern¬ 
ment  have  a  right  to  comment  upon  these  reasons,  and  upon  what  reasons  they 
claim  really  exist. 

Mr.  Leonard — Your  Honor  will  save  me  the  point. 

Mr.  Gillett — My  Brother  Leonard  says  I  cannot  comment  upon  the  wife’s  not 
testifying.  As  his  Honor  has  just  suggested,  they  cannot  compel  the  wife  to  testify, 
but  if  she  shall  incline  to  testify  for  her  husband,  she  can.  But  pray  tell  me  if  there 
is  any  such  relationship,  that  she  shall  have  any  delicacy  in  testifying  in  behalf  of 
Dunlap.  And  yet  there  she  sat.  Two  honest  German  girls  came  to  the  stand,  w’ho 
make  an  important  point  in  this  case.  My  Brother  Leonard  inquires  if  they  were 


76 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


called  in  reply  to  anything.  One  of  them  had  been  here  two  or  three  weeks,  expect¬ 
ing,  of  course,  that  they  could  not  be  so  utterly  desperate  in  their  defense  as  to  be 
compelled  to  leave  off  Mrs.  Scott,  and  the  other  only  came  here  yesterday  or  the  day 
before  for  the  purpose  of  rebutting  that  testimony,  and  here  Mrs.  Scott  sits  and  hears 
these  two  girls  swear,  one  of  them  that  she  went  there  on  the  31st  day  of  January,  fix¬ 
ing  the  time  by  the  day  that  Mrs.  Scott’s  sister  left;  she  says  further,  that  she 
remained  there  a  week  and  four  days;  that  Scott  was  at  home  during  the  week  until 
Saturday,  the  5th  day  of  February,  when  Scott  left  home,  was  not  lame,  and  did  not 
return  until  Wednesday  night,  the  9th.  The  5th  day  of  February  was  the  day  they 
went  to  Springfield.  He  came  home  again  on  Wednesday  night.  He  opens  the  door 
before  the  pressure  of  that  German  girl’s  hand.  She  swears  to  it,  and  then  the  other 
girl  swears  that  she  went  there  on  Monday,  the  7th,  and  that  Scott  was  not  at  home, 
and  she  did  not  see  him  until  Thursday  morning;  that  the  other  girl  let  him  into  the 
house,  and  that  he  was  not  lame;  and  suddenly,  on  Friday,  unexpectedly,  Mrs.  Scott 
and  Mr.  Scott  packed  up  their  things  and  left  the  house  and  went  to  Mrs  Ballou's  to 
board,  when,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Raphael,  the  agent  of  the  house, 
he  had  paid  his  .  rent  up  to  the  first  of  May  next,  a  month  and  a  half  and  more 
that  he  gave  up  the  rent  of  this  house  with  its  marble  pillars,  and  yet  he  was  so  poor, 
as  my  Brother  Leonard  states,  that  in  the  little  domestic  arrangements  he  was 
obliged  to  have  his  clothes  mended  by  a  tailor,  to  whom  he  presents  a  gold  headed 
cane  !  I  say  these  two  German  girls  go  to  the  stand  with  this  testimony  to  it  in  the 
presence  of  Mrs.  Scott,  and  she  is  silent.  But  what  is  more  significant,  Mrs.  Scott 
there,  Dunlap  there,  Scott  there,  and  listening  to  this  conclusive,  damning  testimony 
and  in  consultation  with  their  counsel,  yet  my  skillful  friends  do  not  take  the  hazard 
to  ask  those  girls  a  question  !  Not  one  question  !  Didn’t  dare,  if  they  were  not  to 
call  Scott  and  Dunlap  and  Mrs.  Scott  to  the  stand;  didn’t  dare  to  apply  to  them  the 
common  tests  that  apply  to  all  witnesses  who  speak  falsely.  And  both  of  these  girls 
not  only  swear  that  Scott  wore  a  moustache,  and  in  their  ingenuous  and  unsophisti¬ 
cated  way  tell  you  that  Mr.  “Barton”  was  in  good  health,  and  that  that  was  Mr. 
Barton.  And  my  Brother  Leonard  tries  to  explain  to  you  why  the  defendants  were 
not  called  upon  the  stand,  and  he  says  to  you  in  explanation,  that  he  never  yet  called 
a  defendant  to  the  stand  who  was  tried  for  a  crime.  Then,  Mr.  Foreman  and  gentle¬ 
men,  he  never  defended  a  man  whom  he  believed  to  be  innocent.  And  more  than 
that,  if  an  innocent  man  were  defended,  not  only  my  Brother  Leonard  could  shrink 
from  the  risk  of  putting  an  innocent  man  upon  the  stand,  but  could  he  keep  an  in¬ 
nocent  man  off?  If  Scott  and  Dunlap  were  innocent,  think  you,  in  spite  of  advice  of 
counsel,  they  would  not  have  seized  that  witness  stand  and  have  demanded  the 
privilege  of  telling  you  their  truthful  story?  My  Brother  Leonard  says  you  would 
not  believe  them  if  they  told  their  story.  Why  not?  Why  not?  There  is  no  other 
reason  for  not  believing  them,  except  that  they  are  guilty.  If  they  are  innocent, 
could  they  not  have  told  their  story  of  innocence?  Could  not.  at  least,  Mr.  Fore¬ 
man,  could  not  Scott  and  Dunlap  at  least  give  us  the  history  of  one  single  day,  or  of 
one  single  hour,  in  all  their  lifetime,  down  to  the  period  they  were  thrust  into  that 
jail,  of  any  honest  labor  or  employment  anywhere  or  for  anybody  they  ever  did  ? 
Couldn’t  they  have  given  us  a  little  biography  that  should  have  let  in  some  light  up¬ 
on  their  mysterious  lives  ?  But  instead  of  giving  us  anything,  they  leave  us  to  our 
conjectures  and  to  such  facts  as  we  can  gather.  And,  gentlemen,  the  only  evidence 
of  any  labor  that  they  have  ever  performed  in  their  lifetime,  and  the  only  symbols  of 
any  work  that  they  ever  did  in  their  lifetime,  or  any  implements  of  labor  they  ever 
employed,  are  these  burglars’  tools  found  in  their  possession  when  they  were  arrested  ! 
This  is  the  first  evidence  that  we  have  from  anybody  suggesting  any  work  they  ever 
did,  excepting  such  as  comes  from  Edson.  Couldn't  they  have  explained  something? 
And  then,  having  been  found  with  these  tools,  they  go  before  the  magistrate,  are  ar¬ 
raigned  and  asked  for  their  names  ;  they  withheld  even  their  names,  because  they  say 
that  silence  is  a  part  of  their  defence. 

Gentlemen.  I  do  not  propose  to  detain  you  any  longer.  We  have  endeavored  to 
prove  to  you  that  these  defendants  are  guilty.  We  have  endeavored  to  prove  it,  in 
the  first  place  by  the  uncorroborated  testimony  of  an  accomplice;  we  have  presented 
to  you  his  testimony,  which  we  say  is  the  most  extraordinary  piece  ot  testimony  that 
was  ever  given  on  a  witness  stand  in  the  whole  history  of  criminal  jurisprudence, 


TRIAL  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


77 


and  we  ask  you  to  believe  it  from  its  internal  evidence,  from  its  intrinsic  probability 
and  the  impossibility  of  the  story  being  otherwise  than  true..  Then  we  introduce  evi¬ 
dence  before  you  of  certain  corroborative  facts,  and  we  show  to  you  that  he  is  cor¬ 
roborated  in  various  points;  we  show  to  you  that  he  was  corroborated  by  the  Wilkes- 
barre  affair,  by  the  affair  at  Syracuse,  that  he  was  corroborated  by  the  interview  be¬ 
tween  Connors  and  Williams,  made  in  accordance  with  the  agreement  previously 
made  between  the  parties;  and  also  from  the  fact  that  Scott  went  to  Springfield  and 
Connors  went  after  him,  and  that  he  came  back  in  consequence  of  what  Edson  him¬ 
self  had  achieved  in  that  direction.  Then  we  went  with  you  to  the  scene  of  the 
burglary,  the  dwelling-house  of  Whittelsey,  and  I  ask  you  to  consider  the  evidence 
derived  from  the  witnesses  there,  Mr.  Whittelsey,  Mrs.  Whittelsey  and  Mrs.  Page; 
and  then  we  ask  you  to  rely  upon  the  testimony  of  Mr  Crafts,  Mr.  Mantor,  and  Mrs. 
Crafts  ;  then  we  ask  you  to  go  to  Springfield,  and  to  rely  upon  the  testimony  which 
we  gathered  there,  and  we  have  grouped  this  testimony  together,  making  out,  as  we 
believe,  conclusively  and  inextricably,  the  guilt  of  the  defendants.  In  their  endeav¬ 
ors  to  explain  the  testimony  which  has  been  introduced  by  the  defense,  and  we  claim 
that  that  testimony,  instead  of  going  one  single  step  towards  their  acquittal,  only  in¬ 
volves  them  more  and  more  in  the  confusion  of  guilt. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  leave  the  further  consideration  of  this  important  cause.  The  ques¬ 
tion  for  you  to  decide  is,  are  the  defendants  guilty,  or  are  they  innocent,  upon  the  evi¬ 
dence  ?  The  eloquent  appeal  made  by  my  learned  friend  to  you,  in  regard  to  the  practical 
result  that  must  follow  a  conviction,  should  not  influence  your  honest  minds.  Whether 
they  are  to  see  again  the  light  of  the  sun,  or  the  moon,  or  the  stars,  is  not  one  of  the  con¬ 
sequences  that  you  can  be  made  responsible  for.  Such  appeals  are  not  appropriate  to  this 
tribunal  ;  they  may  be  pertinent  elsewhere. 

The  diversified  functions  of  our  government  are  wisely  distributed,  and  the  duties  of  its 
various  departments  do  not  clash.  The  cloud  of  justice  which  settles  down  upon  this  tri¬ 
bunal,  is  armed  with  executing  thunders.  Only  as  it  encircles  the  brow  of  the  executive 
does  it  reveal  its  silver  lining  of  mercy.  Remember,  gentlemen,  that  mercy  to  criminals 
is  cruelty  to  the  innocent.  I  trust  your  verdict  may  not  be  such  a  one  as  shall  create  a 
gala-day  among  the  thirty-five  thousand  professional  thieves  of  the  city  of  New  York,  and 
especially  among  the  aristocracy  in  villainy,  to  which  I  claim  that  the  defendants  belong, 
who  make  that  city  the  base  of  their  operations,  and  the  whole  country  the  theater  of  their 
achievements  ;  and  these  banded  miscreants  shall  not  exult,  that  at  last  Massachusetts 
has  become  a  safe  field  for  their  professional  experiments,  and  of  all  places,  and  the  last 
place,  that  the  old  County  of  Hampshire  has  at  length  opened  her  door  of  invitation  to 
masked  burglars  and  midnight  robbers.  God  forbid  !  Rather  let  your  verdict  prove  a 
terror  to  evil  doers,  and  a  joy  to  those  who  do  well.  Let  us  reassure  the  people  of  this 
Commonwealth,  as  to-day  our  ears  are  stunned  by  the  echoes  of  lawless  violence  in  other 
States,  that  here,  if  nowhere  else,  her  citizens  shall  be  protected  in  their  property,  and 
their  lives,  by  night  as  well  as  by  day,  and  especially  in  the  sanctuary  of  their  own  homes, 
the  place  “where  we  all  live,  or  bear  no  life,”  so  that  when  the  day  of  honest  toil  is  done, 
and  the  darkness  comes  on,  and  “God  giveth  his  beloved  sleep,”  the  solitary,  even,  whom 
“He  hath  established  in  families,”  may  rest  in  their  beds  in  peace,  and  in  conscious  secu¬ 
rity,  beneath  the  silent  omnipresence  of  the  law. 

The  Jury  Return  a  Yerdict  of  Guilty. 

Judge  Bacon  charged  the  jury,  and  at  about  three  o’clock  they  retired  to  deliberate 
upon  their  verdict.  At  about  six,  they  reported  to  the  court  that  they  had  agreed  upon 
a  verdict  of  Gitilty.  At  first,  the  jury  stood  ten  for  conviction  and  two  for  acquittal, 
and  the  two  yielded  after  the  points  upon  which  they  at  first  doubted  had  been  dis¬ 
cussed.  They  were  at  no  time  very  strenuous,  but  were  a  little  in  doubt.  The  an¬ 
nouncement  of  the  verdict  made  a  profound  sensation  in  the  court-room,  but  apparently 
it  made  little  impression  upon  the  prisoners. 

Exceptions  Taken. — A  New  Trial  Asked  For. 

The  counsel  for  the  defense  took  numerous  exceptions  to  the  rulings  of  the  Judge  during  the  two  trials; 
one  of  the  chief  of  which  is  the  exception  to  the  displacement  of  a  juror  from  the  panel  by  a  challenge 
from  the  government  after  he  had  been  accepted  and  sworn.  The  exceptions  taken  during  the  la  t  trial 
will  be  filed  with  the  Clerk  of  the  Courts  on  or  before  August  2.  Then  they  will  be  examined  by  the  coun¬ 
sel  for  the  prosecution,  and  if  they  are  found  to  be  in  accordance  with  the  facts  of  'he  case,  they  will  be 
reported  to  the  Supreme  Court,  in  September.  If  they  are  not  found  to  be  correct,  then  the  presiding 
J udge  will  be  called  in  to  assist  in  shaping  them.  Arguments  will  be  heard  upon  them  pro  and  con  in  Sep¬ 
tember,  and  if  the  exceptions  are  sustained,  the  c  >se  will  be  put  on  the  list  for  trial  again  in  December;  if 
they  are  overruled,  the  defendants  will  be  called  up  in  December  for  sentence. 


[From  the  New  York  Sunday  Sun,  July  29. — Written  by  E.  J.  Edwards,  Special  Reporter.] 


Gigantic  Bank  Robberies. 


A  Remarkable  Series  of  Crimes— Edson  the  Lock  Expert— His 
Connection  with  Connors,  Scott,  and  Dunlap  —Nearly 
$3,000,000  taken  from  So-called  Burglar 

Proof  Safes. 


The  old-time  bank  burglar  went  out  of  the  busi¬ 
ness  when  scientific  men  invented  the  combination 
lock.  Bank  men  and  safe  men  imagined  that  at  last 
something  had  been  found  that  was  burglar-proof. 
But  in  1872  a  robbery  in  Louisville  opened  their  eyes, 
and  this  was  followed  for  a  period  of  four  years  by 
a  series  of  robberies  and  attempts  which  not  only 
had  never  been  equaled,  so  far  as  daring  and  suc¬ 
cess  were  concerned,  but  which  showed  that  burg¬ 
lars  of  ability  had  got  the  best  of  combination 
locks. 

From  the  similarity  of  method  in  all  these  robber¬ 
ies  and  attempts,  it  was  plain  that  the  same  men 
were  doing  them ;  but  they  covered  their  tracks  so 
skilfully,  that,  although  some  of  them  were  suspect¬ 
ed,  no  proof  was  ever  obtained  of  their  guilt,  ex¬ 
cepting  in  the  case  of  one  man,  until  the  remarka¬ 
ble  developments  which  followed  the  arrest  of  Scott, 
Dunlap  and  Connors  for  robbing  the  Northampton 
National  Bank. 

Now,  that  Scott  and  Dunlap  are  convicted,  and 
will  probably  spend  the  rest  of  their  days  in  State 

Srison,  the  whole  story  of  the  organization  of  this 
.ing,  of  their  various  attempts  and  of  their  suc¬ 
cessful  robbery  of  nearly  three  millions  of  money 
and  bonds  in  the  four  years  that  they  operated  to¬ 
gether,  may  be  told  for  the  first  time." 

Robert  C.  Scott  spent  his  boyhood  in  the  town  of 
Warsaw,  Ill.  He  had  served  one  term  in  the  Illinois 
penitentiary  for  grand  larceny,  and  was  serving  a 
second  for  stabbing  a  man,  when  he  met  in  the  pen¬ 
itentiary  an  old  bank  robber,  Tom  Riley,  alias  Tom 
Scott,  alias  Scarfaced  Tom.  When  both  were  re¬ 
leased,  Scott  was  introduced  by  Riley,  who  is  now 
in  Auburn,  to  James  Dunlap,  who  is  either  a  Scotch¬ 
man  or  of  Scotch  descent.  Both  Scott  and  Dunlap 
were  men  of  strength,  health,  nerve,  patience,  and 
brains.  How  soon  after  they  met  Billy  Connors,  so 
well  known  in  New  York  was  taken  into  the  Ring, 
is  not  known,  but  it  is  certain  that  within  a  few 
months  after  their  acquaintanceship,  the  Falls  City 
Bank  of  Louisville,  Ky.,  was  broken  into  and  robbed 
by  the  Ring,  and  some  §200,000  stolen.  This  was  in 
1872,  and  was  the  first  bank  robbed  by  the  Ring. 
Less  is  known  about  the  means  employed  in  robbing 
this  bank  than  of  those  that  followed.  But  soon 
after  this  robbery,  the  partners  began  to  scour 
through  the  country,  looking  for  weak  banks.  One 
of  them,  probably  Connors,  “  spotted  ”  the  Second 
National  Bank  of  Elmira,  and,  after  a  thorough  in¬ 
vestigation,  found  that  the  only  way  that  they 
could  work  was  through  the  floor  of  the  Young 
Men’s  Christian  Association  room,  which  was  di 
rectly  over  the  vault  of  the  bank.  But  a  difficulty 
presented  itself.  The  door  of  the  room  was  an  iron 
one,  and  locked  with  a  Hall  lock.  It  was  necessary 
to  be  able  to  open  this  lock  in  some  way  every  night 
in  order  to  work  at  the  vault,  and  they  did  not  know 
how  a  Hall  lock  could  be  opened,  nor  could  they 
learn. 

LOCK  SECRETS. 

They  decided  that  in  some  way  they  must  get  the 
secret  of  the  Hall  lock.  Connors  spent  a  great  deal 
of  time,  and  at  last  heard  that  a  salesman  of  Her¬ 
ring’s  safes  stabled  a  horse  at  Ryan’s,  in  Thirty- 
fourth  street.  Ryan  had  been  crooked  years  before, 
and  to  him  Connors  went,  and  Ryan  consented  to 
bring  this  salesman,  Edson,  and  Connors,  together. 
Ryan  began  by  hinting  to  Edson  that  he  had  splen¬ 
did  opportunities  to  make  money  easily  and  safely, 


and  so,  gradually  leading  the  way,  he  at  last  asked 
Edson  to  be  allowed  to  introduce  a  friend  to  him. 
This  friend  was  Billy  Connors,  and  at  the  first  inter¬ 
view  nothing  more  than  very  gentle  hints  passed. 
Some  six  interviews  were  had,  and  at  the  last,  which 
took  place  in  a  saloon  in  Prince  street,  near  Broad¬ 
way,  Edson  consented  for  §50,000  to  tell  Connors 
how  a  Hall  lock  could  be  opened.  Connors  went 
away  in  great  glee,  and  told  the  rest  of  the  Ring 
that  he  had  got  a  man  now  who  could  open  any  lock 
in  the  country  for  them.  Then  the  plan  was  ar¬ 
ranged.  Connors  got  some  one  in  Elmira  to  send  a 
letter  to  Herring  &  Co.,  inquiring  about  safes,  and, 
as  was  expected,  Edson  was  sent  to  see  about  it. 
He  went  to  Elmira,  stopping  at  the  Rathbone  House, 
and  on  the  Sunday  after  his  arrival  a  man  came  iu 
and  sat  opposite  to  him  at  dinner.  This  man  asked 
Edson  whether  his  name  was  Edson,  and  being  told 
that  it  was,  said  he  had  a  letter  of  introduction. 
This  man  was  Robert  C.  Scott.  It  was  agreed  that 
Scott  should  put  a  paper  wad  into  the  Hall  lock  that 
night,  so  that  it  would  not  work  the  next  morning. 
Meanwhile,  Edson  was  to  let  it  be  known  that  he 
was  in  town,  and  it  was  expected  that,  naturally, 
he  would  be  called  on  to  repair  the  lock.  It  hap¬ 
pened  just  as  was  expected,  and  while  Edson  re¬ 
paired  the  lock  he  got  an  impression  of  the  key, 
which  he  gave  Scott,  and  the  difficulty  of  approach 
to  the  bank  vaults  was  then  cleared  away. 

The  burglars,  before  they  found  Edson,  went  so 
far  as  to  break  into  the  house  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  T.  M.  C.  A.,  and  to  feel  in  his  pockets  for  the 
keys,  simply  to  get  an  impression  of  them.  But  the 
Secretary  had  hidden  the  keys  under  the  carpet, 
and  they  were  foiled.  This  Secretary  was  greatly 
surprised  the  next  morning  to  see  traces  of  burg¬ 
lary,  and  to  find  that  nothing  had  been  taken,  and 
he  never  understood  it. 

SHAM  HOUSEKEEPING. 

After  the  key  was  finally  obtained,  arrangements 
were  made.  A  woman  who  lived  in  Baltimore  was 
hired  to  go  to  Elmira  and  take  a  house  somewhere 
in  the  suburbs.  She  was  represented  as  the  wife  of 
a  man  who  was  away  a  great  deal.  This  house  was 
simply  furnished  wit'll  cooking  utensils,  a  few  blank¬ 
ets,  and  a  set  of  window  curtains  throughout.  This 
woman  made  a  great  display  of  keeping  house, 
sweeping  the  steps  and  yard  every  day  with  great 
vigor.  Here  Scott,  Dunlap,  Red  Leary,  Billy  Con¬ 
nors  and  John  Berry  spent  their  days,  going  out  at 
night  only,  and  they  were  never  seen.  They  lived 
there  six  weeks.  Every  night  they  went  to  the  Y. 
M.  C.  A.  room,  unlocked  the  door,  took  up  the  floor¬ 
ing,  and  went  to  work.  They  removed  ton  after  ton 
of  stones  and  carried  them  up  to  the  top  of  the  Op¬ 
era  House  building  in  baskets.  There  were  four  feet 
of  solid  masonry  to  be  dug  through,  some  of  the 
stones  weighing  a  ton  ;  then  a  layer  of  railroad  iron 
and  a  plate  of  \]4  inch  steel.  They  got  through  all 
of  this  but  the  last  plate  ;  but  one  night  President 
Pratt,  of  the  bank,  having  occasion  to  go  into  the 
vault,  saw  a  layer  of  white  dust  on  the  floor.  He 
suspected  something,  and  got  an  officer.  An  alarm 
was  given  to  the  gang,  and  all  got  away  but  Berry. 
He  was  arrested  at  the  door,  and  is  now  serving  a 
sentence  in  Auburn  prison,  his  time  being  up  next 
September,  for  this  attempted  burglary.  After¬ 
ward  the  air  pump  which  they  expected  to  use  to 
blow  powder  into  the  safe,  was  found  in  the  lumber 
yard,  where  they  had  hidden  it.  Connors  the  same 


SKETCH  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS 


79 


night  was  seized  by  a  man  at  the  depot,  but  he 
wrenched  himself  away,  and  walked  to  Watkins, 
N.  Y.,  and  from  there  took  a  boat  to  Geneva,  and 
met  Scott  and  Dunlap  on  the  New  York  Central 
train,  they  having  gone  from  Elmira  to  Buffalo,  and 
then  taken  the  train  to  New  York.  They  had  ex¬ 
pected  to  get  some  $200,000  in  greenbacks  and  $6  - 
000,000  in  bonds. 

After  helping  Berry  on  his  trial  and  seeing  that 
his  family  was  taken  care  of,  they  agreed  to  scout 
again.  Dunlap  went  West,  and  after  some  time  in 
February,  1874,  sent  to  Scott  to  make  up  a  party, 
and  bring  the  air  pump,  as  he  had  “found  something 
to  go  to  work  at.”  Scott  made  up  the  party,  which 
consisted  of  himself,  Tom  Draper,  Dave  Cummings, 
alias  Little  Dave,  Tom  Bigelow,  Billy  Flynn,  and 
George  Mason,  and  they,  going  by  different  ro  utes, 
met  Dunlap  in  Quincy,  Ill.  Here  the  Baltimore 
woman  had  hired  a  house,  and  in  it  the  gang  lived, 
and  from  it  went  to  work.  Getting  access  to  the 
room  over  the  vault,  they  took  up  the  flooring  ev¬ 
ery  night,  and  at  last  got  down  to  the  safes  upon 
which  they  expected  to  use  the  air  pump.  But,  for 
one  reason  or  another,  they  had  to  wait  two  weeks 
for  a  good  night  to  consummate  the  job.  At  last 
the  night  came,  and  Scott  and  Dunlap,  after  taking 
off  the  brick  top,  went  down  into  the  vault.  Then  the 
seams  of  the  upper  safe  were  all  puttied  up,  except¬ 
ing  a  little  hole  at  the  top  and  bottom.  On  a  piece 
of  paper  was  placed  fine  powder,  and  held  to  the 
little  hole  at  the  top  of  the  vault,  and  the  air  pump 
was  applied  to  the  lower  hole  ;  and  thus  the  powder 
was  sucked  in.  Then  a  little  pistol  was  attached  to 
the  upper  hole,  loaded  only  with  powder,  a  string 
attached  to  the  trigger,  and  at  a  safe  dis¬ 
tance  discharged  ;  but  there  was  only  a  puff. 
Another  attempt  was  more  successful,  and  $120,- 
000  in  money  and  some  $700,000  in  bonds  were  taken. 
The  bank  acknowledged  a  loss  of  only  $80,000. 
Neither  the  money  nor  the  bonds  have  been  recov¬ 
ered. 

SUMPTUOUS  LIVING. 

The  party  returned  to  New  York,  and  for  a  time 
lived  in  great  style.  The  choicest  wines  and  cigars, 
fast  horses  and  women  melted  their  money.  It  was 
at  this  time  that  Scott  bought  the  celebrated  trotter 
Knox  which  made  a  sensation  on  the  Coney  Island 
road.  Many  persons  will  now  learn  with  amaze¬ 
ment  that  the  dashing  young  man  who  cut  such  a 
swath  in  the  summer  of  1874  speeding  his  splendid 
horse  down  the  Coney  Island  road,  was  Robert  C. 
Scott,  the  burglar,  and  that  the  blonde  moustached 
man  with  him,  who  seemed  such  a  jolly  good  fellow, 
was  bis  pal  and  companion  now  in  Northampton 
jail,  James  Dunlap. 

In  the  fall  of  1874  their  money  gave  out  again,  and 
they  began  to  look  around  for  a  fresh  job.  Edson  had 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  Quincy  robbery,  and  the 
Ring  had  not  seen  him  for  nearly  a  year.  As  the 
air  pump  was  Edson’s  they  paid  him  for  its  use  in 
the  Quincy  robbery,  but  only  about  half  the  amount 
they  had  promised  to  pay.  In  the  fall,  how  ever, 
Dunlap  went  to  see  him.  Edson  then  told  Dunlap 
that  he  wished  to  sever  all  connection  with  them, 
but  said  Dunlap,  “Berry,  who  is  now  'n  Auburn, 
wants  to  squeal,  and  I  am  the  only  one  who  can  stop 
him.  Would  you  want  your  family  to  know  of  the 
disgrace  and  your  employers  ?”  With  this  threat 
held  over  him,  Edson  consented  to  go  and  examine 
the  Saratoga  National  Bank,  which  he  did  ;  but  he 
reported  to  them  that  the  attempt  would  not  be 
feasible.  Then  they  “spotted”  the  Long  Island 
Savings  Bank,  and  this  appeared  very  “good 
ground.”  because  they  could  hire  the  adjoining  prem¬ 
ises.  But  they  had  some  difficulty  in  getting  any 
one  to  hire  these  premises.  They  had  been  piping 
the  Atlantic  Bank  in  Brooklyn,  but  had  given  it  up 
for  the  Long  Island.  Connors  was  sent  West  to 
find  a  man  who  would  hire  the  premises,  but  he 
could  not  get  any  one.  Finally,  Billy  Maher,  a  part¬ 
ner  of  Max  Shinburn,  the  famous  burglar,  was 
given  $100  to  hire  the  adjoining  premises  ;  but  he 
“jumped  away”  with  the  money.  Just  at  this 


time,  a  Jew  had  come  from  the  vicinity  of  Des 
Moines,  Iowa,  to  New  York,  to  get  some  one  to  go 
out  there  and  rob  the  county  treasury.  Scott  and 
George  Mason  went  out  with  this  Jew,  took  the 
joi',  and  this  caused  the  first  trouble  in  the  Ring, 
Dunlap  feeling  very  hard  toward  Scott.  The  Des 
Moines  job  failed,  having  been  given  away,  and 
Scott  and  Mason  escaped  arrest  by  jumping  from  a 
railroad  train,  leaving  all  their  tools.  They  walked 
some  twenty  miles  in  a  freezing  ice  storm,  and  their 
legs  were  badly  cut  up  and  bruised  by  their  fre¬ 
quent  falls  on  the  ice. 

BUSINESS  AND  PLEASURE. 

Before  the  attempt  upon  the  Long  Island  Bank, 
they  had  intended  to  rob  the  bank  on  Nantucket 
Island.  Scott,  Dunlap  and  “  Red  ”  Leary  had  visit¬ 
ed  the  island  while  on  a  pleasure  trip,  and  found 
the  bank  an  easy  one  to  get  at.  They  found  an  old 
sea  captain  in  New  York  who  agreed  to  pilot  them 
to  Nantucket  and  back  for  a  share  in  the  spoils. 
They  left  New  York  in  a  sloop,  and  sailed  through 
the  Sound.  When  off  Block  Island,  a  fearful  storm 
came  up.  Every  man  in  the  party,  except  the  cap¬ 
tain,  was  fearfully  sea-sick,  and  none  of  them  knew 
one  rope  from  another.  They  expected  to  go  to  the 
bottom,  but  finally  they  reached  Greenport,  Long 
Island,  where  they  left  the  captain  to  take  care  of 
himself  and  vessel. 

Alter  a  while  it  was  learned  that  the  First  National 
Bank  of  Covington,  Ky.,  had  a  great  deal  of  money  in 
its  vaults,  and  was  a  good  one  to  “work.”  Scott,  Con¬ 
nors,  Red  Leary,  Jim  Draper  and  others  went  to  Cov¬ 
ington,  but  Dunlap  was  not  included  in  the  party  on 
a  count  of  his  quarrel  with  Scott.  The  vault  of  this 
bank  is  under  the  Opera  House.  Connors  fitted  a  key 
to  the  Opera  House  door.  The  gang  went  in  every 
night,  removed  the  orchestra  seals,  took  up  the  floor, 
and  easily  took  oft  the  top  of  the  vault.  When  all  was 
ready  Connors  stayed  outside  to  watch.  Scott  and 
Leary  went  down  into  the  vault,  and  charged  the  safe 
with  powdi  r.  The  explosion  was  a  terrific  one,  as  a  lit¬ 
tle  nitro-glycerine  was  used.  The  ceiling  of  the  bank 
fell,  and  there  was  a  big  shower  of  bricks,  dust,  and 
mortar.  The  noise  was  so  loud  that  Connors  was  lright- 
ened.  He  gave  an  alarm,  and  the  gang  fled,  leaving  be¬ 
hind  $400,000  in  greenbacks  and  $1,500,000  in  good 
bonds.  The  alarm  was  needless,  as  no  one  went  to  the 
bank  until  8  o’clock  next  day.  Connors  was  blamed  for 
giving  a  false  alarm  and  thus  losing  such  a  rich  haul, 
and  it  was  said  by  all  that  had  Dunlap  been  there  he 
would  not  have  gone  without  the  money.  The  first 
thiug  to  do,  they  agreed,  was  to  get  Dunlap  back  into 
the  party. 

The  Rockville,  Conn.,  Bank  was  next  pitched  upon. 
Before  deciding  to  try  this  bank,  they  examined  banks 
at  Plymouth,  Bloomsburg,  and  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,  and 
at  Syracuse,  N.  Y.;  but  some  one  told  Dunlap  that  the 
Rockville  Bank  was  an  easy  one  to  get  into.  Scott 
went  to  Rockville  in  his  assumed  character  of  horse 
dealer,  and  Dunlap  and  Connors  followed  soon  atter- 
ward.  They  had  no  trouble  in  getting  into  the  room 
over  the  bank,  and  on  the  first  night  found  that  there 
we>e  only  a  few  layers  of  brick  between  the  top  of  the 
vault  and  the  inside.  They  worked  upon  this  top  about 
a  week,  taking  out  a  few  bricks  every  night.  One  night 
Dunlap  warned  Scott  that  they  had  got  to  work  very 
carefully  ;  if  they  did  not,  the  top  would  give  way.  The 
night  before  they  expected  to  get  access  to  the  vault, 
Scott  was  jamming  at  the  bricks  with  a  jimmy.  By  ac¬ 
cident  he  forced  it  through  the  top  of  the  vault,  and  it 
fell  inside.  As  there  was  no  way  to  get  it  out,  and  as 
its  discovery  would  lead  to  a  careful  guarding  of  the 
bank  they  gave  up  the  job,  and  rode  to  Hartford,  and 
then  to  New  York. 

ENTERING  A  BANK  THROUGH  THE  ROOF. 

The  Ring  were  now  getting  very  short  of  money,  and 
decided  to  make  another  attempt  on  the  easiest  bank. 
They  at  first  thought  of  taking  the  bank  at  Blooms¬ 
burg,  Pa.,  but  Connors,  who  had  been  to  Pittston,  came 
back  and  reported  that  the  Pittston  Bank  was  “good 


80 


SKETCH  OF  THE  NORTHAMPTON  BANK  ROBBERS. 


ground.”  The  party  was  made  up,  and  abont  the  Jast 
of  October,  1875,  they  began  operations.  The  First 
National  Bank  of  Pittston  is,  or  was  then,  a  one-story 
building,  covered  with  a  tin  roof.  After  6ome  consulta¬ 
tion  it  was  decided  that  work  had  better  be  begun  on 
the  rool.  Dunlap  got  some  n d  putty  in  New  York; 
some  of  the  tin  roofing  was  taken  up,  and  then  the 
boards  of  the  roof  were  removed.  This  work  look  one 
night.  The  boards  were  carefully  put  back,  the  tin 
put  down  and  joined  with  red  putty.  So  carefully  was 
this  done  that,  although  there  was  a  hard  rain  and  sleet 
storm  the  next  day,  the  roof  did  not  leak  a  drop.  The 
next  night  the  tin  and  boards  were  removed  again,  and 
work  was  begun  on  the  top  of  the  vault.  A  layer  of 
bricks  was  removed  and  the  roof  put  back.  This  work 
was  carried  on  uutil  only  one  layer  of  bricks  remained. 
This  was  removed  on  the  night  of  the  burglary,  Nov. 
4.  1875.  The  top  of  the  vault  was  taken  oil  in  two 
hours’  time,  and  then  Scott  and  Dunlap  let  themselves 
down  into  the  vault.  Connors  piped  outside  and  the 
others  were  placed  where  they  were  needed.  In  the 
vault  were  three  Marvin  spherical  safes.  There  was 
also  a  burglar  alarm  in  the  vault.  This  troubled  Scott 
and  Dunlap.  They  at  length  decided  to  surround  it 
with  boards.  Then  they  culled  for  the  air  pump,  the 
dynamite  aud  the  powder,  which  were  let  down  to  them. 
Scott  applied  the  air  pump  to  one  of  the  safes,  but  they 
overchaiged  it  w  ith  powder  and  it  blew  half  the  door 
ofl.  Then  they  opened  it  by  inserting  dynamite  and 
exploding  it.  In  the  safe  they  found  $5U0  in  currency 
anil  $00,000  in  good  bonds.  Next  they  attacked  another 
safe.  They  first  broke  ofl'  the  spindle,  and,  inserting  a 
little  dynamite,  blew  ofT  a  plate.  Then  they  inserted 
another  charge  of  dynamite,  and  another,  blowing  oil 
plate  alter  plate.  They  had  only  one  more  plate  to  blow 
off  when  they  heard  Connors  giving  the  alarm.  In  this 
safe  was  a  very  large  sum  of  money.  While  they  were 
in  the  vault,  Scotland  Dunlap  caused  twelve  explosions, 
one  of  them  a  terrific  one ;  but  they  did  not  dare  waste 
time  by  leaving  the  vault  before  an  explosion  and  then 
returning,  60  they  remainel  in  tlfo  vault  throughout, 
and  trusted  to  the  boards  they  had  put  around  the 
burglar  alarm  to  protect  them.  Just  alter  the  last  ex¬ 
plosion  Connors  saw  a  man  looking  out  of  a  window  of 
a  house  near  by,  aud  it  was  for  this  that  he  gave  the 
alarm.  It  appears  that,  of  the  twelve  explosions,  the 
man  heard  the  last  two,  and  went  out  to  6ee  what  the 
noise  was  caused  by. 

When  Scott  and  Dunlap  came  out  of  this  vault  they 
were  almost  exhausted.  Their  clothes  were  wringing 
wet,  although  it  was  a  cold  night,  and  their  lungs  were 
filled  with  the  noxious  aud  disagreeable  gas  which  an 
explosion  ol  dynamite  makes.  They  could  hardly 
walk  at  first,  aud  had  to  be  stimulated.  Then  they 
walked  to  Leigh,  some  thirty  miles,  and,  takiugan  early 
train,  were  in  New  York  the  next  afternoon.  The  bonds 
were  afterward  “compromised”  back  to  the  bank 
through  the  aid  ol  New  York  lawyers,  but  the  amount 
obtained  was  so  small  that  it  was  decided  to  do  another 
job  as  soon  as  possible. 

A  TREMENDOUS  JOB. 

In  the  summer  before  these  two  last  attempts, 
George  Miles,  the  Barre  bank  robber,  told  Scott 
that  there  was  a  bank  in  Northampton,  Mass.,  that 
could  be  beaten.  They  had  gone  to  Northampton 
several  times,  and  had  sent  Edson  there  before  the 
Pittston  robbery.  But  they  found  difficulties,  and 
Connors  was  doubtful  of  their  success.  These  were 
the  night  watchmen,  the  four  keys  in  different 
hands,  the  combination,  which  was  divided  between 
two  persons.  They  decided  that  it  would  be  use¬ 
less  to  try  to  dig  into  the  vault  ;  if  Edson  could  get 
impressions  of  the  four  keys,  and  could  get  the 
combination  into  one  person’s  keeping,  they  could 
do  the  rest.  Edson  did  his  part,  as  the  reports 
printed  in  the  papers  have  shown.  He  got  impres¬ 
sions  of  the  four  keys,  and  by  his  advice  the  bank 
gave  the  entire  combination  to  Mr.  YVhittelsey,  the 
Cashier.  After  talking  over  many  plans,  they  de¬ 
cided  to  take  a  bolder  step  than  they  had  yet  taken 
— to  force  the  combination  from  Mr.  Whittelsey  at 


the  point  of  the  pistol,  then  jump  suddenly  upon 
and  overpower  the  night  policemen,  gag  them,  take 
them  to  the  lockup,  and  lock  them  in  with  the  pris¬ 
oners.  But  Dunlap  accidentally  learned  that  the 
night  watchman  went  off  duty  at  4  o’clock  in  the 
morning,  and  as  that  would  give  them  nearly  three 
hours  of  darkness  at  that  time  of  the  year,  they 
decided  to  spend  the  night  between  midnight  and  4 
o’clock  at  VVhittelsey’s  house.  How  they  did  their 
work  is  now  well  known.  The  bonds  and  papers 
were  taken  away  in  pillowcases,  and  hidden  in  one 
of  the  vaults  in  the  Northampton  burying-ground, 
whence  they  were  removed  some  time  in  February. 

When  the  burglars  found  out  that  they  had  ob¬ 
tained  a  million  and  a  quarter  of  money  and  bonds, 
they  were  almost  beside  themselves  with  joy.  They 
estimated  that  on  a  compromise  they  would  clear  be¬ 
tween  three  and  four  hundred  thousand  dollars,  and 
they  were  certain  that  the  bank  and  individual  losers 
would  be  so  anxious  to  get  the  “  stuff  ”  back  that  the 
burglars  would  be  safe,  even  if  it  was  suspected  that 
they  did  the  job.  Of  this  last  they  had  little  fear. 
They  had  done  so  many  jobs,  and  left  no  traces  be¬ 
hind,  and  were  so  confident  that  they  had  left  none 
in  this  case,  that  they  felt  no  anxiety,  and  began 
steps  at  once  for  a  compromise.  Then  the  quarrel 
broke  out.  Edson  began  to  negotiate  with  the 
bank  people,  and  saw  very  soon  that  they  sus¬ 
pected  him  of  haring  had  something  to  do  with  the 
burglary.  Meanwhile,  the  bank  had  put  the  busi¬ 
ness  into  the  hands  of  Pinkerton’s  agency,  by  which 
all  the  operations  of  the  gang  were  afterwards  fer¬ 
reted  out. 

EDSON  REVEALS  ALL. 

Several  interviews  were  had  by  Edson  and  the 
bank  officers,  and,  through  Edson, "Connors  and  Mr. 
Williams,  one  of  the  batik  officers,  were  brought  to¬ 
gether.  But  these  negotiations  all  failed,  aud  Edson 
saw  that  he  was  falling  between  two  stools.  Mean¬ 
while,  Pinkerton’s  men  had  suspected  Scott  and 
Dunlap,  and  one  of  their  detectives  was  constantly 
shadowing  them.  At  last  Edson  told  Mr.  Williams 
in  an  interview  ;  “I  am  trying  to  effect  a  negotia¬ 
tion,  but  I  am  left  by  these  men  in  a  very  bad  light 
by  their  constant  pla3-ing  with  you  and  me,  after 
you  take  the  trouble  to  come  to  New  York.  Now, 
sir,  if  you  don’t  reach  a  settlement,  at  the  next 
meeting,  by  G— d,  1  will  tell  you  who  the  men  are.” 

The  negotiation  fell  through,  and  Edson  kept  his 
word.  Going  to  Pinkerton’s  office  by  request  of  the 
bank,  he  gave  a  detailed  history  of  the  robbery, 
which  led  to  the  arrest  of  Scott,  Dunlap  and 
Connors  and  to  the  flight  of  Red  Leary.  When 
Connors  escaped  from  Ludlow  street  ja.il,  the  con¬ 
trol  of  the  securities  was  given  to  him,  and  he  has 
furnished  some  of  the  money  for  the  defence  of 
these  men. 

Scott,  who  was  a  skilful  organizer  and  planner, 
was  the  leader  of  the  Ring,  but  the  execution  of  the 
dangerous  work  was  always  put  into  Dunlap’s 
hands.  Dunlap  has  been  often  arrested,  but  has 
invariably  managed  in  one  way  or  another  to  get 
out  of  his  difficulties,  and  he  fancied  that  his  luck 
would  not  desert  him  now.  Connors  generally 
“  piped  ” — that  is,  watched  outside — during  a  rob- 
bery,  and  was  expected  to  conduct  negotiations  for 
the  return  of  the  securities.  The  rest  of  the  gang 
were  simply  assistants.  It  is  known  that  some  of 
these  last  have  long  been  dissatisfied  with  the 
treatment  received  from  Scott  and  Dunlap,  and  are 
pleased  that  the  leaders  have  got  into  trouble. 
In  fact,  Edson,  before  he  betrayed  the  gang, 
received  a  letter  from  one  of  these  dissatisfied 
men,  warning  him  to  look  out  “  that  he  did  not  get 
tarred  with  the  same  stick  that  he  was  at  Quincy  ” 
— referring  to  the  attempt  of  Scott,  Dunlap,  and 
Connors  to  cheat  him  out  of  his  fair  proportion  of 
the  spoils  of  the  Quincy  robbery. 

The  amount  stolen  by  this  gang  in  four  years  is 
nearly  three  millions  of  dollars  in  money  and  secu¬ 
rities,  most  of  which  has  not  been  recovered. 


to*  *o*™SFro,v  «»'»«» 

,»  .MU(U.r'  KM  Bo«.l«-  1- 

lions. 


iriwc^ce 


People  who  took  any  special  interest  in  the 
•neat  .Northampton  bank  robbery  have  had 
frequent  occasion  to  note  that  on  the  return  of 
the  anniversary  of  fthat  event  some  fresh  and 
highly  entertainins^Svelation  was  sure  to  be 
brought  out  csacerning  it.  And  some  of  them 
who  wCveJtrNhe  bloom  of  youth  on  tli®  morning 
of  .Wary  37, 1876,  when  the  startling  truth 
'that  Cashier  AYhittelsey  and  his  toehold  had 

S-srr,wat,ss"Si 

robbery11  Not  to  review  the'd  iff  event  sensations 
which  the  seven  revolving  years  have  bronght, 
it  seems  that  the  recent  suit  against  the  hank 
hv  Mrs  Fanny  D.  Wylie,  to  recover  $10,000  in 
1  bonds  which ‘she  had  deposited  with  them  for 

safe  keeniim  at  the  time  of  the  robbery,  tried  m 
the  New  Ym-k  courts  and  won  by  the  detend- 
mt  brought  out  considerable  of  the  true  in¬ 
wardness  of  the  whole  affair,  hitherto  known 
o.flv  to  those  inside  the  directors’  ring. 

For  a  year  after  the  robbery  the  hank  tried 
to  make  negotiations  for  the  jeturn  of  the 
steal,  but  tbe  burglars  wanted  at  the 

whole,  and  ’'S.er^sid^ouM  '  ever  q  J 
K8  under i took  Ah  ar- 
vest  as  many  of  the  Iheives  as  they  could,  i  bey 
<rot  Scott  and  Dunlap,  as  everybody  knows,  and 
secured  20  years  for  them  at  Concord.,  They 
iDo  arrested  “Red  Leary,  Mian.,  Dr  a 

opt  and  Lilly  Connors,  but  they  didn  t 
keep*  them,  as  everybody  knows.  After 
Scott  and  Dunlap  bad  been  shut  up 
some  little  time  they  sent  word  to  the 
hank  that  they  could  cause  the  return  ot  all 
f  that  had  been  stolen  except  the  government 
!  bonds  and  $100,000  in  other  secmities.  AL 
though  they  were  confined  apait  from  cacn 
other  they  both  told  the  hank  men  that  Kuulap 
1  controlled  the  funds,  and  that  he •.would  sur¬ 
render  them  in  return  lor  a  pardon  or  ei 
trial  for  each  of  them.  It  was  aiso  knowii  that 
the  S40,000  in  government  bonds  aud  the  •„  lo, 
000  cash  were  divided  immediatedly  after  the 
robbery,  mid  that  only  a  few  days ;  before  Scott 
and  Dunlap  were  arrested  $100,000  in  the 
most  available  securities  bad  been  set 
aside  to  be  turned  into  money  lor  the 
help  af  any  ot  the  gang  who  might  be  arrested. 
The  §25,000  in  bonds  which  Director  Hinckley 
'  recovered  by  paying  *0000  belonged  to  this  lot, 
as  did  the  $10,000  for -which  Mrs  Wylie  has ;  just 
sued  in  vain.  Knowing  these  things,  the  hank 
men.  according  to  statements  recently  publLshed 


in  the  New  YorK  sun,  ^ 

;  the  different  governors  of  Massachuse  s  c  ■  J 

something  for  Scott  and  Dunlap.  It  w.,  «<>»£>*• 
lioweyer,  Gov  Long  _  remarking  tnat  wbjth|* 


aM  tH  i 

tone  to  consider  appeals  for  executive  | 
clcine’iev.  Mea n white  boffii&ettGried-*©.|scgpe^ 

onSme  day,  having  probab  V  hcen  ^le  to 

pnrmrmviicate  with  eacn  other  and  then  associ 
TSSSS&&*  tto-ougb  the 

gffijg St 

Fofr  three  years  and  a  half  they r  s tuck  to  e 
story  that  Dunlap  controlled  the  bulk  ol  the 
steal.  i 

Then  Scott  was  attacked  with  quick  con¬ 
sumption,  and  his  mother,  who  came  on;  from  j 


Jf 


Illinois  to  see  him,  urged  him  to  make  r^stiti  - 
firm  He  agreed  to  do  it,  and  so  did  Dunlap, 
who' confessed  that  ‘‘Red”  Leary  was  the ^ma 
in  charge  of  the  funds,  and  tJiatHie  latter  mm 
written  him  that  theyshouldhe  given  up,  so  that 

changed  his  mind.  Leary,  who  had  es 
caned  from  Ludlow-street  jail  and  been  to 

arrested  near  New  York  o“a  clew  ^v,m  Jf 

SglhcYhree  hours  they  were  together  in 
of  what  he  held  aelivered  to  the  ^u^ars 

S£SSSa®w4s‘  tSTSSEiWS 

wmirnm 

=Mi~SS§sM 

safe  deposit  company  m  that  c  y  a 

inoarently  been  protected  in  then  niuius 
EPby  onedysilk  and  other  wrapping.  ’ 

The  rest  of  the  story  is  soon  told.  Scott  and. 
Dunlap  (1  id  lidt  appear  against  Leary,  and  be. 
was  discharged,  together  with  Draper  and  Con¬ 
nors  Scott  died  in  prison  soon  alter, 

isse:pc«5£g&5g 

'  saassgsx* 


THE 

The 


- 


YALE  TIME  LOCK. 


Only  Positively  Automatic  Time  Lock. 


IN  THIS  LOCK,  THE  ACT  OF  LOCKING  IS  PERFORMED  BY  THI 
TIME  MOVEMENTS,  THUS  AVOIDING  THE  DAILY  MENTAL 
CALCULATION  AND  SETTING  BY  HAND,  NECES¬ 
SARY  IN  ALL  OTHER  TIME  LOCKS. 


Is  in  Use  by  Over  Eight  Hundred  Hanks 

MADE  ONLY  BY  THE 

JtTctle  _Cocfc  JS£cLruzf CLctizr'izzg  Co., 

STAMFORD,  CONN.  1 

AGENTS  FOR  NEW  ENGLAND. 

Morris  &  Ireland,  .....  GI  Sudbury  St.,  Boston,  Mass. 

AGENTS  FOR  THE  OHIO  VALLEY. 

Macneale  &  T  it  ban,  .  Corner  Pearl  and  Plum  Sts.,  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

AGENTS  FOR  THE  NORTHWEST. 

Covert  &  Greenhood, . 40  State  St.,  Chicago,  Ill 


